http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Tristandeliege 2026-07-28T00:15:26Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.38.2 http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Deduction&diff=472 2022-08-15T10:53:05Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§4.1'''<br /> <br /> Deduction is the strongest type of inference—the type in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. This is sometimes expressed by saying that, in a deduction, the premises ''necessitate'' the conclusion or that the conclusion ''follows necessarily'' from them. It is this feature of necessitation that Aristotle, the first logician, focused on when defining deduction.10 <br /> We will discuss shortly what it is about the premises of deductive arguments that makes the conclusions follow necessarily, but first let’s make a few observations and introduce a few terms. Unlike the sorts of inferences that will be discussed in the remaining sections, deductive inferences do not differ from one another in strength. Either an inference is deductive, or it is not. However, there are some arguments that may seem like deductions when they are not. To differentiate between the genuine deductions and the imposters, logicians call the genuine ones ''valid'' deductions and the imposters ''invalid''. (We will turn soon to examples of each.) All valid deductive arguments have equally strong inferences, but this doesn’t mean that the arguments as a whole are equally strong, since their premises may still differ in epistemic status. Thus, the two things to do in evaluating a deductive argument are to determine whether it is valid and to assess the premises. <br /> If the deduction is valid and the premises are certain then the argument will make the conclusion certain. If it is valid and all but one of the premises are certain, then it will elevate the conclusion to the epistemic status of the remaining premise. If more than one of the premises is uncertain, then the argument will give us less reason to believe the conclusion than we have to believe the least certain of its premises. <br /> Now let’s consider how the premises of deductive arguments necessitate their conclusions, by looking at some examples. (For the time being ignore the symbolic representation.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1441# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1039/export?token=916b58e1-07e7-484c-adf9-2cb8897c1eb7&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |All birds are animals. All parrots are birds. All parrots are animals. <br /> <br /> |All animals need food. All men are animals. All men need food. <br /> <br /> |All B are C All A are B All A are C <br /> |}<br /> <br /> Let’s focus on the first of these examples. Notice that it is not because of anything special about the subject matter that the premises necessitate the conclusion. If we changed the argument to be about Volkswagens, cars, and Jettas, rather than birds, animals, and parrots, the premises would still necessitate the conclusion. The same holds if we changed the argument to make it about musicians, matadors, and marriage counselors. In this last case, both premises would be false, but if they were true (that is, if all musicians were matadors and all matadors, marriage counselors), then the conclusion would have to be true: all musicians would have to be marriage counselors. What makes the deduction work doesn’t have to do with the subject matter of the propositions involved, but with their structure and interrelation. This is called the ''form'' of the argument. <br /> Notice now that the argument immediately to the right of the one we have been considering has the same logical form. (If you don’t see this immediately, try replacing the phrase “need food” with “are things that need food” or “are food-needers”.) In order to focus on the forms of deductive arguments rather than their content, Aristotle introduced the practice of using letters to stand for the subjects and predicates of the propositions, leaving behind only words like “some”, “all”, “no”, “is” and “not” (and their variants). Thus, we can arrive at the symbolic representation, presented in the right above, of the form of the arguments we’ve been discussing. <br /> Here are some other forms of deductive arguments. (Again, the arguments next two each other share the same form which is represented symbolically on the right.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1445# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1040/export?token=7ea78494-d796-48fe-bcb0-731f73379afb&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1447# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1041/export?token=929a5fec-eb8c-4468-87c6-8a4cb5f82e76&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1449# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1042/export?token=9ea18ef3-9d6c-4d80-ae4e-7447ea4ee011&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=200&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/3/32/Map19-21.png<br /> <br /> http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/5/54/Map_22-24.png<br /> <br /> http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/5/55/Map_25-27.png<br /> <br /> Aristotle went through all possible combinations of two premises and a conclusion that could be made with propositions of the form “All/Some A are/aren’t B” and figured out which were valid deductions. It turned out that all of the valid forms could be restated in terms of the four that we’ve already looked at. <br /> Why, in each of these cases, do the premises necessitate the conclusion? It is because one premise is a universal proposition saying something about everything of a certain sort and the other premise tells us that something else is that sort of thing. The conclusion then applies the universal premise about all things of the sort to the thing that the other premise tells us is a member of that sort. If the universal premise is really true, and the thing in question really belongs to the relevant sort, then the universal premise will, of course, have to apply to that thing. <br /> <br /> http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/1/1b/Aristotle_examples.png<br /> <br /> Though most deductive arguments involve the application of universal propositions to particular cases, not all do. Some, which were focused on by later Greek and Medieval logicians, involve the application of hypothetical statements to actual cases or the application of statements about alternative possibilities to cases in which some of the alternatives have been ruled out. Here are some examples: <br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1449# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1042/export?token=9ea18ef3-9d6c-4d80-ae4e-7447ea4ee011&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=File:Aristotle_examples.png&diff=471 2022-08-15T10:45:10Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=File:Map_25-27.png&diff=470 2022-08-15T10:44:20Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=File:Map_22-24.png&diff=469 2022-08-15T10:44:01Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Deduction&diff=468 2022-08-15T10:41:26Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§4.1'''<br /> <br /> Deduction is the strongest type of inference—the type in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. This is sometimes expressed by saying that, in a deduction, the premises ''necessitate'' the conclusion or that the conclusion ''follows necessarily'' from them. It is this feature of necessitation that Aristotle, the first logician, focused on when defining deduction.10 <br /> We will discuss shortly what it is about the premises of deductive arguments that makes the conclusions follow necessarily, but first let’s make a few observations and introduce a few terms. Unlike the sorts of inferences that will be discussed in the remaining sections, deductive inferences do not differ from one another in strength. Either an inference is deductive, or it is not. However, there are some arguments that may seem like deductions when they are not. To differentiate between the genuine deductions and the imposters, logicians call the genuine ones ''valid'' deductions and the imposters ''invalid''. (We will turn soon to examples of each.) All valid deductive arguments have equally strong inferences, but this doesn’t mean that the arguments as a whole are equally strong, since their premises may still differ in epistemic status. Thus, the two things to do in evaluating a deductive argument are to determine whether it is valid and to assess the premises. <br /> If the deduction is valid and the premises are certain then the argument will make the conclusion certain. If it is valid and all but one of the premises are certain, then it will elevate the conclusion to the epistemic status of the remaining premise. If more than one of the premises is uncertain, then the argument will give us less reason to believe the conclusion than we have to believe the least certain of its premises. <br /> Now let’s consider how the premises of deductive arguments necessitate their conclusions, by looking at some examples. (For the time being ignore the symbolic representation.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1441# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1039/export?token=916b58e1-07e7-484c-adf9-2cb8897c1eb7&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |All birds are animals. All parrots are birds. All parrots are animals. <br /> <br /> |All animals need food. All men are animals. All men need food. <br /> <br /> |All B are C All A are B All A are C <br /> |}<br /> <br /> Let’s focus on the first of these examples. Notice that it is not because of anything special about the subject matter that the premises necessitate the conclusion. If we changed the argument to be about Volkswagens, cars, and Jettas, rather than birds, animals, and parrots, the premises would still necessitate the conclusion. The same holds if we changed the argument to make it about musicians, matadors, and marriage counselors. In this last case, both premises would be false, but if they were true (that is, if all musicians were matadors and all matadors, marriage counselors), then the conclusion would have to be true: all musicians would have to be marriage counselors. What makes the deduction work doesn’t have to do with the subject matter of the propositions involved, but with their structure and interrelation. This is called the ''form'' of the argument. <br /> Notice now that the argument immediately to the right of the one we have been considering has the same logical form. (If you don’t see this immediately, try replacing the phrase “need food” with “are things that need food” or “are food-needers”.) In order to focus on the forms of deductive arguments rather than their content, Aristotle introduced the practice of using letters to stand for the subjects and predicates of the propositions, leaving behind only words like “some”, “all”, “no”, “is” and “not” (and their variants). Thus, we can arrive at the symbolic representation, presented in the right above, of the form of the arguments we’ve been discussing. <br /> Here are some other forms of deductive arguments. (Again, the arguments next two each other share the same form which is represented symbolically on the right.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1445# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1040/export?token=7ea78494-d796-48fe-bcb0-731f73379afb&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1447# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1041/export?token=929a5fec-eb8c-4468-87c6-8a4cb5f82e76&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1449# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1042/export?token=9ea18ef3-9d6c-4d80-ae4e-7447ea4ee011&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=200&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> [image=http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/File:Map19-21.png]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Deduction&diff=467 2022-08-15T10:41:17Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§4.1'''<br /> <br /> Deduction is the strongest type of inference—the type in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. This is sometimes expressed by saying that, in a deduction, the premises ''necessitate'' the conclusion or that the conclusion ''follows necessarily'' from them. It is this feature of necessitation that Aristotle, the first logician, focused on when defining deduction.10 <br /> We will discuss shortly what it is about the premises of deductive arguments that makes the conclusions follow necessarily, but first let’s make a few observations and introduce a few terms. Unlike the sorts of inferences that will be discussed in the remaining sections, deductive inferences do not differ from one another in strength. Either an inference is deductive, or it is not. However, there are some arguments that may seem like deductions when they are not. To differentiate between the genuine deductions and the imposters, logicians call the genuine ones ''valid'' deductions and the imposters ''invalid''. (We will turn soon to examples of each.) All valid deductive arguments have equally strong inferences, but this doesn’t mean that the arguments as a whole are equally strong, since their premises may still differ in epistemic status. Thus, the two things to do in evaluating a deductive argument are to determine whether it is valid and to assess the premises. <br /> If the deduction is valid and the premises are certain then the argument will make the conclusion certain. If it is valid and all but one of the premises are certain, then it will elevate the conclusion to the epistemic status of the remaining premise. If more than one of the premises is uncertain, then the argument will give us less reason to believe the conclusion than we have to believe the least certain of its premises. <br /> Now let’s consider how the premises of deductive arguments necessitate their conclusions, by looking at some examples. (For the time being ignore the symbolic representation.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1441# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1039/export?token=916b58e1-07e7-484c-adf9-2cb8897c1eb7&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |All birds are animals. All parrots are birds. All parrots are animals. <br /> <br /> |All animals need food. All men are animals. All men need food. <br /> <br /> |All B are C All A are B All A are C <br /> |}<br /> <br /> Let’s focus on the first of these examples. Notice that it is not because of anything special about the subject matter that the premises necessitate the conclusion. If we changed the argument to be about Volkswagens, cars, and Jettas, rather than birds, animals, and parrots, the premises would still necessitate the conclusion. The same holds if we changed the argument to make it about musicians, matadors, and marriage counselors. In this last case, both premises would be false, but if they were true (that is, if all musicians were matadors and all matadors, marriage counselors), then the conclusion would have to be true: all musicians would have to be marriage counselors. What makes the deduction work doesn’t have to do with the subject matter of the propositions involved, but with their structure and interrelation. This is called the ''form'' of the argument. <br /> Notice now that the argument immediately to the right of the one we have been considering has the same logical form. (If you don’t see this immediately, try replacing the phrase “need food” with “are things that need food” or “are food-needers”.) In order to focus on the forms of deductive arguments rather than their content, Aristotle introduced the practice of using letters to stand for the subjects and predicates of the propositions, leaving behind only words like “some”, “all”, “no”, “is” and “not” (and their variants). Thus, we can arrive at the symbolic representation, presented in the right above, of the form of the arguments we’ve been discussing. <br /> Here are some other forms of deductive arguments. (Again, the arguments next two each other share the same form which is represented symbolically on the right.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1445# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1040/export?token=7ea78494-d796-48fe-bcb0-731f73379afb&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1447# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1041/export?token=929a5fec-eb8c-4468-87c6-8a4cb5f82e76&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1449# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1042/export?token=9ea18ef3-9d6c-4d80-ae4e-7447ea4ee011&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=200&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> image=http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/File:Map19-21.png</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Deduction&diff=466 2022-08-15T10:40:37Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§4.1'''<br /> <br /> Deduction is the strongest type of inference—the type in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. This is sometimes expressed by saying that, in a deduction, the premises ''necessitate'' the conclusion or that the conclusion ''follows necessarily'' from them. It is this feature of necessitation that Aristotle, the first logician, focused on when defining deduction.10 <br /> We will discuss shortly what it is about the premises of deductive arguments that makes the conclusions follow necessarily, but first let’s make a few observations and introduce a few terms. Unlike the sorts of inferences that will be discussed in the remaining sections, deductive inferences do not differ from one another in strength. Either an inference is deductive, or it is not. However, there are some arguments that may seem like deductions when they are not. To differentiate between the genuine deductions and the imposters, logicians call the genuine ones ''valid'' deductions and the imposters ''invalid''. (We will turn soon to examples of each.) All valid deductive arguments have equally strong inferences, but this doesn’t mean that the arguments as a whole are equally strong, since their premises may still differ in epistemic status. Thus, the two things to do in evaluating a deductive argument are to determine whether it is valid and to assess the premises. <br /> If the deduction is valid and the premises are certain then the argument will make the conclusion certain. If it is valid and all but one of the premises are certain, then it will elevate the conclusion to the epistemic status of the remaining premise. If more than one of the premises is uncertain, then the argument will give us less reason to believe the conclusion than we have to believe the least certain of its premises. <br /> Now let’s consider how the premises of deductive arguments necessitate their conclusions, by looking at some examples. (For the time being ignore the symbolic representation.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1441# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1039/export?token=916b58e1-07e7-484c-adf9-2cb8897c1eb7&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |All birds are animals. All parrots are birds. All parrots are animals. <br /> <br /> |All animals need food. All men are animals. All men need food. <br /> <br /> |All B are C All A are B All A are C <br /> |}<br /> <br /> Let’s focus on the first of these examples. Notice that it is not because of anything special about the subject matter that the premises necessitate the conclusion. If we changed the argument to be about Volkswagens, cars, and Jettas, rather than birds, animals, and parrots, the premises would still necessitate the conclusion. The same holds if we changed the argument to make it about musicians, matadors, and marriage counselors. In this last case, both premises would be false, but if they were true (that is, if all musicians were matadors and all matadors, marriage counselors), then the conclusion would have to be true: all musicians would have to be marriage counselors. What makes the deduction work doesn’t have to do with the subject matter of the propositions involved, but with their structure and interrelation. This is called the ''form'' of the argument. <br /> Notice now that the argument immediately to the right of the one we have been considering has the same logical form. (If you don’t see this immediately, try replacing the phrase “need food” with “are things that need food” or “are food-needers”.) In order to focus on the forms of deductive arguments rather than their content, Aristotle introduced the practice of using letters to stand for the subjects and predicates of the propositions, leaving behind only words like “some”, “all”, “no”, “is” and “not” (and their variants). Thus, we can arrive at the symbolic representation, presented in the right above, of the form of the arguments we’ve been discussing. <br /> Here are some other forms of deductive arguments. (Again, the arguments next two each other share the same form which is represented symbolically on the right.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1445# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1040/export?token=7ea78494-d796-48fe-bcb0-731f73379afb&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1447# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1041/export?token=929a5fec-eb8c-4468-87c6-8a4cb5f82e76&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1449# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1042/export?token=9ea18ef3-9d6c-4d80-ae4e-7447ea4ee011&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=200&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/File:Map19-21.png</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Deduction&diff=465 2022-08-15T10:40:28Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§4.1'''<br /> <br /> Deduction is the strongest type of inference—the type in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. This is sometimes expressed by saying that, in a deduction, the premises ''necessitate'' the conclusion or that the conclusion ''follows necessarily'' from them. It is this feature of necessitation that Aristotle, the first logician, focused on when defining deduction.10 <br /> We will discuss shortly what it is about the premises of deductive arguments that makes the conclusions follow necessarily, but first let’s make a few observations and introduce a few terms. Unlike the sorts of inferences that will be discussed in the remaining sections, deductive inferences do not differ from one another in strength. Either an inference is deductive, or it is not. However, there are some arguments that may seem like deductions when they are not. To differentiate between the genuine deductions and the imposters, logicians call the genuine ones ''valid'' deductions and the imposters ''invalid''. (We will turn soon to examples of each.) All valid deductive arguments have equally strong inferences, but this doesn’t mean that the arguments as a whole are equally strong, since their premises may still differ in epistemic status. Thus, the two things to do in evaluating a deductive argument are to determine whether it is valid and to assess the premises. <br /> If the deduction is valid and the premises are certain then the argument will make the conclusion certain. If it is valid and all but one of the premises are certain, then it will elevate the conclusion to the epistemic status of the remaining premise. If more than one of the premises is uncertain, then the argument will give us less reason to believe the conclusion than we have to believe the least certain of its premises. <br /> Now let’s consider how the premises of deductive arguments necessitate their conclusions, by looking at some examples. (For the time being ignore the symbolic representation.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1441# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1039/export?token=916b58e1-07e7-484c-adf9-2cb8897c1eb7&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |All birds are animals. All parrots are birds. All parrots are animals. <br /> <br /> |All animals need food. All men are animals. All men need food. <br /> <br /> |All B are C All A are B All A are C <br /> |}<br /> <br /> Let’s focus on the first of these examples. Notice that it is not because of anything special about the subject matter that the premises necessitate the conclusion. If we changed the argument to be about Volkswagens, cars, and Jettas, rather than birds, animals, and parrots, the premises would still necessitate the conclusion. The same holds if we changed the argument to make it about musicians, matadors, and marriage counselors. In this last case, both premises would be false, but if they were true (that is, if all musicians were matadors and all matadors, marriage counselors), then the conclusion would have to be true: all musicians would have to be marriage counselors. What makes the deduction work doesn’t have to do with the subject matter of the propositions involved, but with their structure and interrelation. This is called the ''form'' of the argument. <br /> Notice now that the argument immediately to the right of the one we have been considering has the same logical form. (If you don’t see this immediately, try replacing the phrase “need food” with “are things that need food” or “are food-needers”.) In order to focus on the forms of deductive arguments rather than their content, Aristotle introduced the practice of using letters to stand for the subjects and predicates of the propositions, leaving behind only words like “some”, “all”, “no”, “is” and “not” (and their variants). Thus, we can arrive at the symbolic representation, presented in the right above, of the form of the arguments we’ve been discussing. <br /> Here are some other forms of deductive arguments. (Again, the arguments next two each other share the same form which is represented symbolically on the right.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1445# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1040/export?token=7ea78494-d796-48fe-bcb0-731f73379afb&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1447# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1041/export?token=929a5fec-eb8c-4468-87c6-8a4cb5f82e76&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1449# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1042/export?token=9ea18ef3-9d6c-4d80-ae4e-7447ea4ee011&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=200&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/File:Map19-21.png http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/File:Map19-21.png]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Deduction&diff=464 2022-08-15T10:40:19Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§4.1'''<br /> <br /> Deduction is the strongest type of inference—the type in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. This is sometimes expressed by saying that, in a deduction, the premises ''necessitate'' the conclusion or that the conclusion ''follows necessarily'' from them. It is this feature of necessitation that Aristotle, the first logician, focused on when defining deduction.10 <br /> We will discuss shortly what it is about the premises of deductive arguments that makes the conclusions follow necessarily, but first let’s make a few observations and introduce a few terms. Unlike the sorts of inferences that will be discussed in the remaining sections, deductive inferences do not differ from one another in strength. Either an inference is deductive, or it is not. However, there are some arguments that may seem like deductions when they are not. To differentiate between the genuine deductions and the imposters, logicians call the genuine ones ''valid'' deductions and the imposters ''invalid''. (We will turn soon to examples of each.) All valid deductive arguments have equally strong inferences, but this doesn’t mean that the arguments as a whole are equally strong, since their premises may still differ in epistemic status. Thus, the two things to do in evaluating a deductive argument are to determine whether it is valid and to assess the premises. <br /> If the deduction is valid and the premises are certain then the argument will make the conclusion certain. If it is valid and all but one of the premises are certain, then it will elevate the conclusion to the epistemic status of the remaining premise. If more than one of the premises is uncertain, then the argument will give us less reason to believe the conclusion than we have to believe the least certain of its premises. <br /> Now let’s consider how the premises of deductive arguments necessitate their conclusions, by looking at some examples. (For the time being ignore the symbolic representation.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1441# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1039/export?token=916b58e1-07e7-484c-adf9-2cb8897c1eb7&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |All birds are animals. All parrots are birds. All parrots are animals. <br /> <br /> |All animals need food. All men are animals. All men need food. <br /> <br /> |All B are C All A are B All A are C <br /> |}<br /> <br /> Let’s focus on the first of these examples. Notice that it is not because of anything special about the subject matter that the premises necessitate the conclusion. If we changed the argument to be about Volkswagens, cars, and Jettas, rather than birds, animals, and parrots, the premises would still necessitate the conclusion. The same holds if we changed the argument to make it about musicians, matadors, and marriage counselors. In this last case, both premises would be false, but if they were true (that is, if all musicians were matadors and all matadors, marriage counselors), then the conclusion would have to be true: all musicians would have to be marriage counselors. What makes the deduction work doesn’t have to do with the subject matter of the propositions involved, but with their structure and interrelation. This is called the ''form'' of the argument. <br /> Notice now that the argument immediately to the right of the one we have been considering has the same logical form. (If you don’t see this immediately, try replacing the phrase “need food” with “are things that need food” or “are food-needers”.) In order to focus on the forms of deductive arguments rather than their content, Aristotle introduced the practice of using letters to stand for the subjects and predicates of the propositions, leaving behind only words like “some”, “all”, “no”, “is” and “not” (and their variants). Thus, we can arrive at the symbolic representation, presented in the right above, of the form of the arguments we’ve been discussing. <br /> Here are some other forms of deductive arguments. (Again, the arguments next two each other share the same form which is represented symbolically on the right.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1445# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1040/export?token=7ea78494-d796-48fe-bcb0-731f73379afb&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1447# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1041/export?token=929a5fec-eb8c-4468-87c6-8a4cb5f82e76&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1449# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1042/export?token=9ea18ef3-9d6c-4d80-ae4e-7447ea4ee011&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=200&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/File:Map19-21.png]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=File:Map19-21.png&diff=463 2022-08-15T10:40:05Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Deduction&diff=462 2022-08-15T10:36:47Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§4.1'''<br /> <br /> Deduction is the strongest type of inference—the type in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. This is sometimes expressed by saying that, in a deduction, the premises ''necessitate'' the conclusion or that the conclusion ''follows necessarily'' from them. It is this feature of necessitation that Aristotle, the first logician, focused on when defining deduction.10 <br /> We will discuss shortly what it is about the premises of deductive arguments that makes the conclusions follow necessarily, but first let’s make a few observations and introduce a few terms. Unlike the sorts of inferences that will be discussed in the remaining sections, deductive inferences do not differ from one another in strength. Either an inference is deductive, or it is not. However, there are some arguments that may seem like deductions when they are not. To differentiate between the genuine deductions and the imposters, logicians call the genuine ones ''valid'' deductions and the imposters ''invalid''. (We will turn soon to examples of each.) All valid deductive arguments have equally strong inferences, but this doesn’t mean that the arguments as a whole are equally strong, since their premises may still differ in epistemic status. Thus, the two things to do in evaluating a deductive argument are to determine whether it is valid and to assess the premises. <br /> If the deduction is valid and the premises are certain then the argument will make the conclusion certain. If it is valid and all but one of the premises are certain, then it will elevate the conclusion to the epistemic status of the remaining premise. If more than one of the premises is uncertain, then the argument will give us less reason to believe the conclusion than we have to believe the least certain of its premises. <br /> Now let’s consider how the premises of deductive arguments necessitate their conclusions, by looking at some examples. (For the time being ignore the symbolic representation.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1441# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1039/export?token=916b58e1-07e7-484c-adf9-2cb8897c1eb7&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |All birds are animals. All parrots are birds. All parrots are animals. <br /> <br /> |All animals need food. All men are animals. All men need food. <br /> <br /> |All B are C All A are B All A are C <br /> |}<br /> <br /> Let’s focus on the first of these examples. Notice that it is not because of anything special about the subject matter that the premises necessitate the conclusion. If we changed the argument to be about Volkswagens, cars, and Jettas, rather than birds, animals, and parrots, the premises would still necessitate the conclusion. The same holds if we changed the argument to make it about musicians, matadors, and marriage counselors. In this last case, both premises would be false, but if they were true (that is, if all musicians were matadors and all matadors, marriage counselors), then the conclusion would have to be true: all musicians would have to be marriage counselors. What makes the deduction work doesn’t have to do with the subject matter of the propositions involved, but with their structure and interrelation. This is called the ''form'' of the argument. <br /> Notice now that the argument immediately to the right of the one we have been considering has the same logical form. (If you don’t see this immediately, try replacing the phrase “need food” with “are things that need food” or “are food-needers”.) In order to focus on the forms of deductive arguments rather than their content, Aristotle introduced the practice of using letters to stand for the subjects and predicates of the propositions, leaving behind only words like “some”, “all”, “no”, “is” and “not” (and their variants). Thus, we can arrive at the symbolic representation, presented in the right above, of the form of the arguments we’ve been discussing. <br /> Here are some other forms of deductive arguments. (Again, the arguments next two each other share the same form which is represented symbolically on the right.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1445# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1040/export?token=7ea78494-d796-48fe-bcb0-731f73379afb&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1447# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1041/export?token=929a5fec-eb8c-4468-87c6-8a4cb5f82e76&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Deduction&diff=461 2022-08-15T10:32:54Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§4.1'''<br /> <br /> Deduction is the strongest type of inference—the type in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. This is sometimes expressed by saying that, in a deduction, the premises ''necessitate'' the conclusion or that the conclusion ''follows necessarily'' from them. It is this feature of necessitation that Aristotle, the first logician, focused on when defining deduction.10 <br /> We will discuss shortly what it is about the premises of deductive arguments that makes the conclusions follow necessarily, but first let’s make a few observations and introduce a few terms. Unlike the sorts of inferences that will be discussed in the remaining sections, deductive inferences do not differ from one another in strength. Either an inference is deductive, or it is not. However, there are some arguments that may seem like deductions when they are not. To differentiate between the genuine deductions and the imposters, logicians call the genuine ones ''valid'' deductions and the imposters ''invalid''. (We will turn soon to examples of each.) All valid deductive arguments have equally strong inferences, but this doesn’t mean that the arguments as a whole are equally strong, since their premises may still differ in epistemic status. Thus, the two things to do in evaluating a deductive argument are to determine whether it is valid and to assess the premises. <br /> If the deduction is valid and the premises are certain then the argument will make the conclusion certain. If it is valid and all but one of the premises are certain, then it will elevate the conclusion to the epistemic status of the remaining premise. If more than one of the premises is uncertain, then the argument will give us less reason to believe the conclusion than we have to believe the least certain of its premises. <br /> Now let’s consider how the premises of deductive arguments necessitate their conclusions, by looking at some examples. (For the time being ignore the symbolic representation.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1441# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1039/export?token=916b58e1-07e7-484c-adf9-2cb8897c1eb7&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |All birds are animals. All parrots are birds. All parrots are animals. <br /> <br /> |All animals need food. All men are animals. All men need food. <br /> <br /> |All B are C All A are B All A are C <br /> |}</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Deduction&diff=460 2022-08-15T10:31:36Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§4.1'''<br /> <br /> Deduction is the strongest type of inference—the type in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. This is sometimes expressed by saying that, in a deduction, the premises ''necessitate'' the conclusion or that the conclusion ''follows necessarily'' from them. It is this feature of necessitation that Aristotle, the first logician, focused on when defining deduction.10 <br /> We will discuss shortly what it is about the premises of deductive arguments that makes the conclusions follow necessarily, but first let’s make a few observations and introduce a few terms. Unlike the sorts of inferences that will be discussed in the remaining sections, deductive inferences do not differ from one another in strength. Either an inference is deductive, or it is not. However, there are some arguments that may seem like deductions when they are not. To differentiate between the genuine deductions and the imposters, logicians call the genuine ones ''valid'' deductions and the imposters ''invalid''. (We will turn soon to examples of each.) All valid deductive arguments have equally strong inferences, but this doesn’t mean that the arguments as a whole are equally strong, since their premises may still differ in epistemic status. Thus, the two things to do in evaluating a deductive argument are to determine whether it is valid and to assess the premises. <br /> If the deduction is valid and the premises are certain then the argument will make the conclusion certain. If it is valid and all but one of the premises are certain, then it will elevate the conclusion to the epistemic status of the remaining premise. If more than one of the premises is uncertain, then the argument will give us less reason to believe the conclusion than we have to believe the least certain of its premises. <br /> Now let’s consider how the premises of deductive arguments necessitate their conclusions, by looking at some examples. (For the time being ignore the symbolic representation.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1441# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1039/export?token=916b58e1-07e7-484c-adf9-2cb8897c1eb7&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |All birds are animals. All animals need food. All B are C <br /> <br /> |All parrots are birds. All men are animals. All A are B <br /> <br /> |All parrots are animals. All men need food. All A are C <br /> |}</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Deduction&diff=459 2022-08-15T10:31:18Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§4.1'''<br /> <br /> Deduction is the strongest type of inference—the type in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. This is sometimes expressed by saying that, in a deduction, the premises ''necessitate'' the conclusion or that the conclusion ''follows necessarily'' from them. It is this feature of necessitation that Aristotle, the first logician, focused on when defining deduction.10 <br /> We will discuss shortly what it is about the premises of deductive arguments that makes the conclusions follow necessarily, but first let’s make a few observations and introduce a few terms. Unlike the sorts of inferences that will be discussed in the remaining sections, deductive inferences do not differ from one another in strength. Either an inference is deductive, or it is not. However, there are some arguments that may seem like deductions when they are not. To differentiate between the genuine deductions and the imposters, logicians call the genuine ones ''valid'' deductions and the imposters ''invalid''. (We will turn soon to examples of each.) All valid deductive arguments have equally strong inferences, but this doesn’t mean that the arguments as a whole are equally strong, since their premises may still differ in epistemic status. Thus, the two things to do in evaluating a deductive argument are to determine whether it is valid and to assess the premises. <br /> If the deduction is valid and the premises are certain then the argument will make the conclusion certain. If it is valid and all but one of the premises are certain, then it will elevate the conclusion to the epistemic status of the remaining premise. If more than one of the premises is uncertain, then the argument will give us less reason to believe the conclusion than we have to believe the least certain of its premises. <br /> Now let’s consider how the premises of deductive arguments necessitate their conclusions, by looking at some examples. (For the time being ignore the symbolic representation.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1441# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1039/export?token=916b58e1-07e7-484c-adf9-2cb8897c1eb7&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |All birds are animals. |All animals need food. |All B are C <br /> <br /> |All parrots are birds. |All men are animals. |All A are B <br /> <br /> |All parrots are animals. |All men need food. |All A are C <br /> |}</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Deduction&diff=458 2022-08-15T10:28:30Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§4.1'''<br /> <br /> Deduction is the strongest type of inference—the type in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. This is sometimes expressed by saying that, in a deduction, the premises ''necessitate'' the conclusion or that the conclusion ''follows necessarily'' from them. It is this feature of necessitation that Aristotle, the first logician, focused on when defining deduction.10 <br /> We will discuss shortly what it is about the premises of deductive arguments that makes the conclusions follow necessarily, but first let’s make a few observations and introduce a few terms. Unlike the sorts of inferences that will be discussed in the remaining sections, deductive inferences do not differ from one another in strength. Either an inference is deductive, or it is not. However, there are some arguments that may seem like deductions when they are not. To differentiate between the genuine deductions and the imposters, logicians call the genuine ones ''valid'' deductions and the imposters ''invalid''. (We will turn soon to examples of each.) All valid deductive arguments have equally strong inferences, but this doesn’t mean that the arguments as a whole are equally strong, since their premises may still differ in epistemic status. Thus, the two things to do in evaluating a deductive argument are to determine whether it is valid and to assess the premises. <br /> If the deduction is valid and the premises are certain then the argument will make the conclusion certain. If it is valid and all but one of the premises are certain, then it will elevate the conclusion to the epistemic status of the remaining premise. If more than one of the premises is uncertain, then the argument will give us less reason to believe the conclusion than we have to believe the least certain of its premises. <br /> Now let’s consider how the premises of deductive arguments necessitate their conclusions, by looking at some examples. (For the time being ignore the symbolic representation.)<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1441# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1039/export?token=916b58e1-07e7-484c-adf9-2cb8897c1eb7&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Deduction&diff=457 2022-08-15T10:27:18Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§4.1'''<br /> <br /> Deduction is the strongest type of inference—the type in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. This is sometimes expressed by saying that, in a deduction, the premises ''necessitate'' the conclusion or that the conclusion ''follows necessarily'' from them. It is this feature of necessitation that Aristotle, the first logician, focused on when defining deduction.10 <br /> We will discuss shortly what it is about the premises of deductive arguments that makes the conclusions follow necessarily, but first let’s make a few observations and introduce a few terms. Unlike the sorts of inferences that will be discussed in the remaining sections, deductive inferences do not differ from one another in strength. Either an inference is deductive, or it is not. However, there are some arguments that may seem like deductions when they are not. To differentiate between the genuine deductions and the imposters, logicians call the genuine ones ''valid'' deductions and the imposters ''invalid''. (We will turn soon to examples of each.) All valid deductive arguments have equally strong inferences, but this doesn’t mean that the arguments as a whole are equally strong, since their premises may still differ in epistemic status. Thus, the two things to do in evaluating a deductive argument are to determine whether it is valid and to assess the premises. <br /> If the deduction is valid and the premises are certain then the argument will make the conclusion certain. If it is valid and all but one of the premises are certain, then it will elevate the conclusion to the epistemic status of the remaining premise. If more than one of the premises is uncertain, then the argument will give us less reason to believe the conclusion than we have to believe the least certain of its premises. <br /> Now let’s consider how the premises of deductive arguments necessitate their conclusions, by looking at some examples. (For the time being ignore the symbolic representation.)</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Primer&diff=456 2022-08-15T10:25:36Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>§1 [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Overview Overview] Future Version to be at: [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Overview_of_Analyzing_and_Assessing_Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Propositions §1.1. Propositions]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Anatomy_of_an_Argument §1.2 The Anatomy of an Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Uses_of_Arguments §1.3. The Uses of Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Mapping_the_Relations_Between_Arguments §1.4. Mapping the Relations Between Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Why_Some_Arguments_are_Stronger_than_Others §1.5. Why Some Arguments are Stronger than Others]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/How_to_Assess_Argument §1.6. How to Assess Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Glossary_of_Key_Terms_from_%C2%A71 Glossary of Key Terms from §1]<br /> <br /> <br /> §2. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/How_to_Analyze_an_Argument How to Analyze an Argument] (Future version of whole section to be at this link, edited to be a stand-alone article.)<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Finding_the_Arguments&amp;action=edit §2.1 Finding the Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Identifying_the_Conclusion_and_All_the_Premises&amp;action=edit §2.2 Identifying the Conclusion and All the Premises]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Implicit_Premises&amp;action=edit §2.3 Implicit Premises]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Multi-Step_Arguments_and_Multiple_Arguments_to_the_Same_Conclusion §2.4 Multi-Step Arguments and Multiple Arguments to the Same Conclusion]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations §2.5 Distinguishing Arguments from Explanations]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=An_Example_of_A_Complex_Map&amp;action=edit §2.6 An Example of a Complex Map]<br /> <br /> <br /> §3. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Premises Assessing Premises] (Future version of whole section to be at this link, edited to be a stand-alone article.)<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Epistemic_Status_as_Relative_to_An_Audience_but_Objective §3.1 Epistemic Status as Relative to An Audience but Objective]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Continuum_Between_Knowledge_and_Ignorance §3.2 The Continuum Between Knowledge and Ignorance]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Epistemic_Statuses:_Certainty,_Probability,_Possibility,_and_Arbitrariness §3.3 The Epistemic Statuses: Certainty, Probability, Possibility, and Arbitrariness]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Structure_of_Knowledge_and_the_Danger_of_Circular_Reasoning §3.4 The Structure of Knowledge and the Danger of Circular Reasoning] <br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Glossary_of_Key_Terms_from_%C2%A73 Glossary of Key Terms from §3]<br /> <br /> §4. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Inferences Assessing Inferences] (Future version of whole section to be at this link, edited to be a stand-alone article.)<br /> §4.1 [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Deduction Deduction]<br /> §4.2 Arguments Applying Statistics<br /> §4.3 Induction<br /> §4.4 Statistical Generalization<br /> §4.5 Inference to the Best Explanation<br /> §4.6 Analogical Argument <br /> §4.7 Reductio ad Absurdum<br /> <br /> §5. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Conclusions_in_Light_of_Multiple_Arguments Assessing Conclusions in Light of Multiple Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Refutations_of_Arguments_(and_the_Burden_of_Proof_Principle) §5.1 Refutations of Arguments (and the Burden of Proof Principle)]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Arguments_for_Incompatible_Conclusions §5.2 Assessing Arguments for Incompatible Conclusions]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Combining_Multiple_Arguments_for_the_Same_Proposition §5.3 Combining Multiple Arguments for the Same Proposition]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Deduction&diff=455 2022-08-15T10:25:23Z

<p>Tristandeliege: Created page with &quot;'''§4.1'''&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>'''§4.1'''</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Assessing_Inferences&diff=454 2022-08-15T10:24:45Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§4'''<br /> <br /> Recall from earlier that an inference is good when the premises are related to one another and to the conclusion in such a manner that it is impossible or unlikely for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true. The more unlikely it is for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true, the stronger the inference is. We will now discuss several different types of inference, considering how they work and what makes some inferences of that type stronger than others.</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Primer&diff=453 2022-08-15T10:22:14Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>§1 [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Overview Overview] Future Version to be at: [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Overview_of_Analyzing_and_Assessing_Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Propositions §1.1. Propositions]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Anatomy_of_an_Argument §1.2 The Anatomy of an Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Uses_of_Arguments §1.3. The Uses of Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Mapping_the_Relations_Between_Arguments §1.4. Mapping the Relations Between Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Why_Some_Arguments_are_Stronger_than_Others §1.5. Why Some Arguments are Stronger than Others]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/How_to_Assess_Argument §1.6. How to Assess Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Glossary_of_Key_Terms_from_%C2%A71 Glossary of Key Terms from §1]<br /> <br /> <br /> §2. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/How_to_Analyze_an_Argument How to Analyze an Argument] (Future version of whole section to be at this link, edited to be a stand-alone article.)<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Finding_the_Arguments&amp;action=edit §2.1 Finding the Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Identifying_the_Conclusion_and_All_the_Premises&amp;action=edit §2.2 Identifying the Conclusion and All the Premises]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Implicit_Premises&amp;action=edit §2.3 Implicit Premises]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Multi-Step_Arguments_and_Multiple_Arguments_to_the_Same_Conclusion §2.4 Multi-Step Arguments and Multiple Arguments to the Same Conclusion]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations §2.5 Distinguishing Arguments from Explanations]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=An_Example_of_A_Complex_Map&amp;action=edit §2.6 An Example of a Complex Map]<br /> <br /> <br /> §3. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Premises Assessing Premises] (Future version of whole section to be at this link, edited to be a stand-alone article.)<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Epistemic_Status_as_Relative_to_An_Audience_but_Objective §3.1 Epistemic Status as Relative to An Audience but Objective]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Continuum_Between_Knowledge_and_Ignorance §3.2 The Continuum Between Knowledge and Ignorance]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Epistemic_Statuses:_Certainty,_Probability,_Possibility,_and_Arbitrariness §3.3 The Epistemic Statuses: Certainty, Probability, Possibility, and Arbitrariness]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Structure_of_Knowledge_and_the_Danger_of_Circular_Reasoning §3.4 The Structure of Knowledge and the Danger of Circular Reasoning] <br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Glossary_of_Key_Terms_from_%C2%A73 Glossary of Key Terms from §3]<br /> <br /> §4. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Inferences Assessing Inferences] (Future version of whole section to be at this link, edited to be a stand-alone article.)<br /> §4.1 Deduction<br /> §4.2 Arguments Applying Statistics<br /> §4.3 Induction<br /> §4.4 Statistical Generalization<br /> §4.5 Inference to the Best Explanation<br /> §4.6 Analogical Argument <br /> §4.7 Reductio ad Absurdum<br /> <br /> §5. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Conclusions_in_Light_of_Multiple_Arguments Assessing Conclusions in Light of Multiple Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Refutations_of_Arguments_(and_the_Burden_of_Proof_Principle) §5.1 Refutations of Arguments (and the Burden of Proof Principle)]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Arguments_for_Incompatible_Conclusions §5.2 Assessing Arguments for Incompatible Conclusions]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Combining_Multiple_Arguments_for_the_Same_Proposition §5.3 Combining Multiple Arguments for the Same Proposition]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Primer&diff=452 2022-08-15T10:21:36Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>§1 [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Overview Overview] Future Version to be at: [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Overview_of_Analyzing_and_Assessing_Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Propositions §1.1. Propositions]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Anatomy_of_an_Argument §1.2 The Anatomy of an Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Uses_of_Arguments §1.3. The Uses of Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Mapping_the_Relations_Between_Arguments §1.4. Mapping the Relations Between Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Why_Some_Arguments_are_Stronger_than_Others §1.5. Why Some Arguments are Stronger than Others]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/How_to_Assess_Argument §1.6. How to Assess Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Glossary_of_Key_Terms_from_%C2%A71 Glossary of Key Terms from §1]<br /> <br /> <br /> §2. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/How_to_Analyze_an_Argument How to Analyze an Argument] (Future version of whole section to be at this link, edited to be a stand-alone article.)<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Finding_the_Arguments&amp;action=edit §2.1 Finding the Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Identifying_the_Conclusion_and_All_the_Premises&amp;action=edit §2.2 Identifying the Conclusion and All the Premises]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Implicit_Premises&amp;action=edit §2.3 Implicit Premises]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Multi-Step_Arguments_and_Multiple_Arguments_to_the_Same_Conclusion §2.4 Multi-Step Arguments and Multiple Arguments to the Same Conclusion]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations §2.5 Distinguishing Arguments from Explanations]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=An_Example_of_A_Complex_Map&amp;action=edit §2.6 An Example of a Complex Map]<br /> <br /> <br /> §3. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Inferences http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Premises Assessing Premises] (Future version of whole section to be at this link, edited to be a stand-alone article.)<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Epistemic_Status_as_Relative_to_An_Audience_but_Objective §3.1 Epistemic Status as Relative to An Audience but Objective]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Continuum_Between_Knowledge_and_Ignorance §3.2 The Continuum Between Knowledge and Ignorance]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Epistemic_Statuses:_Certainty,_Probability,_Possibility,_and_Arbitrariness §3.3 The Epistemic Statuses: Certainty, Probability, Possibility, and Arbitrariness]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Structure_of_Knowledge_and_the_Danger_of_Circular_Reasoning §3.4 The Structure of Knowledge and the Danger of Circular Reasoning] <br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Glossary_of_Key_Terms_from_%C2%A73 Glossary of Key Terms from §3]<br /> <br /> §4. Assessing Inferences (Future version of whole section to be at this link, edited to be a stand-alone article.)<br /> §4.1 Deduction<br /> §4.2 Arguments Applying Statistics<br /> §4.3 Induction<br /> §4.4 Statistical Generalization<br /> §4.5 Inference to the Best Explanation<br /> §4.6 Analogical Argument <br /> §4.7 Reductio ad Absurdum<br /> <br /> §5. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Conclusions_in_Light_of_Multiple_Arguments Assessing Conclusions in Light of Multiple Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Refutations_of_Arguments_(and_the_Burden_of_Proof_Principle) §5.1 Refutations of Arguments (and the Burden of Proof Principle)]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Arguments_for_Incompatible_Conclusions §5.2 Assessing Arguments for Incompatible Conclusions]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Combining_Multiple_Arguments_for_the_Same_Proposition §5.3 Combining Multiple Arguments for the Same Proposition]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Assessing_Inferences&diff=451 2022-08-15T10:21:24Z

<p>Tristandeliege: Created page with &quot;'''§4'''&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>'''§4'''</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Implicit_Premises&diff=427 2022-08-10T16:34:19Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§2.3'''<br /> <br /> You may have noticed that there’s something a bit unnatural about the three sentences we looked at above expressing the argument that alcohol should be illegal. It is unlikely that anyone making this argument would state it so longwindedly. More likely he’d simply say: (iv) “Alcohol should be illegal because it’s a drug” or perhaps (v) “Alcohol should be illegal because all drugs should be.” Both of these ways of stating the argument omit one of the premises. People often do this when they think it is obvious what premise would be needed to complete their argument and when they think the person they’re speaking with will agree to that premise. If one maps these arguments as written, here’s what one would get:<br /> <br /> Map 9a of (iv):<br /> <br /> Map 9b of (v):<br /> <br /> Inferences B and C are non-sequiturs, whereas Inference A (in Map 9, above) is a deduction. Moreover, it is obvious what premise you could need to add to Argument B (or Argument C) to make a very strong argument (namely, Argument A).<br /> <br /> We encountered another example of this phenomenon in map 8, above. Here is that map again:<br /> <br /> Map 8:<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1419# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1027/export?token=6de82df8-bd54-4539-a430-095892c732bf&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> Some of ways this argument might be expressed:<br /> <br /> ·I should respect her, because she’s my mother.<br /> <br /> ·She’s my mother, so I should respect her.<br /> <br /> ·I should respect her, for she’s my mother.<br /> <br /> ·She’s my mother. Therefore, I should respect her.<br /> <br /> ·I should respect her; she is my mother after all.<br /> <br /> This map is a map of the argument expressed in different ways by each of the sentences on the right. But the argument is clearly incomplete as written. Inference A is a non-sequitur, which makes Argument A worthless. But if someone said any of the sentences on the right, you would recognize that he was giving you some reason to believe Proposition 1. This is because there’s another premise, which is plausible that when combined with Proposition 2 would make for a stronger argument as follows.<br /> <br /> Map 8a:<br /> <br /> In this map, Proposition 3 is enclosed in brackets to indicate that it isn’t stated in the passage we are analyzing and that we have added it ourselves, because we think that the author of the passage intended us to assume it as a premise of the argument. Such unstated premises are called '''implicit'''.<br /> <br /> When analyzing an argument, it is important to make any implicit premises ''explicit''—that is, to state them. This is necessary because, when you go on to assess the argument, you will need to assess ''all'' of the premises in order to determine how strong the argument is. Some arguments appear to be stronger than they are, because their weakest premises are left implicit.<br /> <br /> Not every unstated belief held by a person making an argument is an implicit premise of that argument, nor even is every unstated belief that is relevant to the subject of the argument. We can probably imagine all sorts of reasons that the person making this argument has for believing that people should respect their mothers, but none of these reasons count as implicit premises of the argument mapped above. Something is an implicit premise ''only if it needs to be added to an argument to prevent one of its inferences from being a non-sequitur'', and if is likely that the person making the argument intended you to assume it.<br /> <br /> Thus, the process of finding implicit premises is closely related to the process of assessing the inference. Once you have identified the stated premises and the conclusion, you may notice that the conclusion ''does not follow'' from the premises. At this point, there are two possibilities: either the inference is a non-sequitur; or there is an implicit premise, which does make the conclusion follow from the premises. You need to use your judgment as to which is the case. Is it more likely that the author of the argument made non-sequitur or that he left one of his premises unstated? People rarely make arguments that include obvious non-sequiturs, so in such cases, it is likely that there is an implicit premise that the author intended you to assume. There are some subtle situations where it is difficult to determine whether an argument is bad or whether there is some implicit premise, and there are cases where it is hard to tell which of several different premises might be implicit; but more often than not it is very clear when someone is relying on an implicit premise and what that premise is.</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Implicit_Premises&diff=426 2022-08-10T16:34:08Z

<p>Tristandeliege: Created page with &quot;'''§2.3''' You may have noticed that there’s something a bit unnatural about the three sentences we looked at above expressing the argument that alcohol should be illegal. It is unlikely that anyone making this argument would state it so longwindedly. More likely he’d simply say: (iv) “Alcohol should be illegal because it’s a drug” or perhaps (v) “Alcohol should be illegal because all drugs should be.” Both of these ways of stating the argument omit one o...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>'''§2.3'''<br /> <br /> You may have noticed that there’s something a bit unnatural about the three sentences we looked at above expressing the argument that alcohol should be illegal. It is unlikely that anyone making this argument would state it so longwindedly. More likely he’d simply say: (iv) “Alcohol should be illegal because it’s a drug” or perhaps (v) “Alcohol should be illegal because all drugs should be.” Both of these ways of stating the argument omit one of the premises. People often do this when they think it is obvious what premise would be needed to complete their argument and when they think the person they’re speaking with will agree to that premise. If one maps these arguments as written, here’s what one would get:<br /> <br /> Map 9a of (iv):<br /> <br /> Map 9b of (v):<br /> <br /> Inferences B and C are non-sequiturs, whereas Inference A (in Map 9, above) is a deduction. Moreover, it is obvious what premise you could need to add to Argument B (or Argument C) to make a very strong argument (namely, Argument A).<br /> <br /> We encountered another example of this phenomenon in map 8, above. Here is that map again:<br /> <br /> Map 8:<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1419# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1027/export?token=6de82df8-bd54-4539-a430-095892c732bf&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=200&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> Some of ways this argument might be expressed:<br /> <br /> ·I should respect her, because she’s my mother.<br /> <br /> ·She’s my mother, so I should respect her.<br /> <br /> ·I should respect her, for she’s my mother.<br /> <br /> ·She’s my mother. Therefore, I should respect her.<br /> <br /> ·I should respect her; she is my mother after all.<br /> <br /> This map is a map of the argument expressed in different ways by each of the sentences on the right. But the argument is clearly incomplete as written. Inference A is a non-sequitur, which makes Argument A worthless. But if someone said any of the sentences on the right, you would recognize that he was giving you some reason to believe Proposition 1. This is because there’s another premise, which is plausible that when combined with Proposition 2 would make for a stronger argument as follows.<br /> <br /> Map 8a:<br /> <br /> In this map, Proposition 3 is enclosed in brackets to indicate that it isn’t stated in the passage we are analyzing and that we have added it ourselves, because we think that the author of the passage intended us to assume it as a premise of the argument. Such unstated premises are called '''implicit'''.<br /> <br /> When analyzing an argument, it is important to make any implicit premises ''explicit''—that is, to state them. This is necessary because, when you go on to assess the argument, you will need to assess ''all'' of the premises in order to determine how strong the argument is. Some arguments appear to be stronger than they are, because their weakest premises are left implicit.<br /> <br /> Not every unstated belief held by a person making an argument is an implicit premise of that argument, nor even is every unstated belief that is relevant to the subject of the argument. We can probably imagine all sorts of reasons that the person making this argument has for believing that people should respect their mothers, but none of these reasons count as implicit premises of the argument mapped above. Something is an implicit premise ''only if it needs to be added to an argument to prevent one of its inferences from being a non-sequitur'', and if is likely that the person making the argument intended you to assume it.<br /> <br /> Thus, the process of finding implicit premises is closely related to the process of assessing the inference. Once you have identified the stated premises and the conclusion, you may notice that the conclusion ''does not follow'' from the premises. At this point, there are two possibilities: either the inference is a non-sequitur; or there is an implicit premise, which does make the conclusion follow from the premises. You need to use your judgment as to which is the case. Is it more likely that the author of the argument made non-sequitur or that he left one of his premises unstated? People rarely make arguments that include obvious non-sequiturs, so in such cases, it is likely that there is an implicit premise that the author intended you to assume. There are some subtle situations where it is difficult to determine whether an argument is bad or whether there is some implicit premise, and there are cases where it is hard to tell which of several different premises might be implicit; but more often than not it is very clear when someone is relying on an implicit premise and what that premise is.</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations&diff=425 2022-08-10T16:29:15Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§2.5'''<br /> <br /> Consider the following passage and the map:<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |The sun is hot, because it is a ball of gases undergoing nuclear fusion, and nuclear fusion releases a great deal of heat.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/2/22/Map11.png<br /> <br /> The use of the particle “because” may lead us to interpret this as argument, along the lines illustrated in the map. And if we knew Propositions 2 and 3, they would in fact give us a reason to believe Proposition 1. However, it is hard to imagine a situation in which someone would know Propositions 2 and 3 without already knowing Proposition 1, so it is unlikely that anyone would ever make this argument. The more natural way to interpret this passage is as giving us an '''explanation''' of Proposition 1.<br /> <br /> An argument gives one a reason to believe that its conclusion is true, whereas an explanation cites the ''causes'' of a phenomenon. That Map 7 contains an explanation, rather than an argument, is illustrated by the use of a gear shape rather than an ordinary circle.<br /> <br /> Often when we’re trying to reach conclusions about things in the future, we use premises that are also causes. For example, we might conclude that it’s about the rain by noticing that there are dark clouds and that such clouds cause rain. But when we’re not reasoning about the future, we usually need to know that a proposition is true, before we try to discover its causes. That’s certainly the case in the passage above. We first know that the sun is hot, and then we try to discover the causes that explain why it is.<br /> <br /> You can usually tell from context (and sometimes from the nuances of how inferential particles are used) whether a passage is meant to explain a proposition or to argue for it. If you’re unsure, it can help to ask yourself what question the passage is answering about the relevant proposition. If it’s an argument, it will be answering the question “How do you know it?” (or “What reason do you have for believing it?”). If it is an explanation, it will be answering the question “What caused it?”<br /> <br /> It is very easy to confuse an explanation for an argument when what is being explained is a person’s beliefs or actions. It is possible to think of a person’s actions or beliefs as effects and to try to explain them, often by citing biographical facts. Suppose that Charlie spanks his children, and we ask ourselves ''why'' he does this. Here are two answers we might come up with:<br /> <br /> (i) Charlie spanks his children because he was spanked by his father.<br /> <br /> (ii) Charlie spanks his children because he thinks it is the most effective way to discipline them.<br /> <br /> Notice that (i) gives us an explanation of Charlie’s behavior, by citing things in Charlie’s past that might cause him to behave as he does, but it doesn’t give us Charlie’s reasons for acting in this way. By contrast, (ii) indicates what Charlie’s reasons might be.<br /> <br /> Now consider another example in that concerns a belief rather than an action. Suppose that Dana believes that it is wrong to eat meat, and we ask ''why'' she believes this. Here are two answers we might get.<br /> <br /> (i) Dana’s parents believed that it is wrong to eat meat.<br /> <br /> (ii) Eating meat causes suffering.<br /> <br /> We can map these two answers as follows:<br /> <br /> Map 12 of (i):<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1427# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1031/export?token=4003b7c9-f0a8-46b7-ae8b-1ce33e940cd5&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> Map 13 of (ii):<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1429 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1032/export?token=d96a4b24-caf0-4b2f-8ea4-760a3b86d4d2&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> Notice that (i) explains Dana’s belief by citing a factor in her biography that caused her to come to this belief, but it doesn’t give Dana any reason for believing as she does. It doesn’t help Dana or us to tell whether her belief is true. By contrast, (ii) gives something that might be Dana’s reason for believing as she does. It gives an ''argument'' that the belief is true.<br /> <br /> Explanations of our actions or beliefs treat these behaviors and beliefs as things that just ''happen'' to us. But our beliefs and actions don’t just happen to us. You are ''responsible'' for the things you do and for the things you believe. This is why you need to think about the reasons you have for your beliefs and actions, and why you need to think about and evaluate other people’s reasons as well, when judging them. Confusing explanations of beliefs (or behaviors) with arguments for them can obscure these reasons.</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Multi-Step_Arguments_and_Multiple_Arguments_to_the_Same_Conclusion&diff=424 2022-08-10T16:27:56Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§2.4'''<br /> <br /> In §1.3 above we saw that there are multi-step arguments, where a premise of one argument is supported by a further argument. You need to be on the lookout for this sort of structure when mapping. Here’s an example:<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |Jane’s visit must have been over a weekend, since she spent two full days here, and she wouldn’t have been able to do so during the week. But Rob wasn’t in town, so the visit had to be on the first weekend in July, since that’s the only one when he wasn’t here.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Map 10:<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1423# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1029/export?token=f240eea9-3762-49b0-8777-70fd34b23432&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> The first sentence of the passage gives us Argument A, with Proposition 1 as its conclusion, and the second sentence then gives us the remaining propositions in Argument B.<br /> <br /> It is not uncommon in such multi-step arguments for some of the propositions to be left implicit. For example, here’s another way in which someone might express the same argument mapped above.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> |Jane wouldn’t have been able to spend two whole days here during the week. But the only weekend when Rob was out of town was the first one in July, so her visit must have been over that weekend.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Here Propositions 1, 2 and 4 (from Map 10) are left implicit, but it is reasonably clear that the author of the passage intended the argument expressed by that map.</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Multi-Step_Arguments_and_Multiple_Arguments_to_the_Same_Conclusion&diff=422 2022-08-10T16:27:24Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§2.4'''<br /> <br /> In §1.3 above we saw that there are multi-step arguments, where a premise of one argument is supported by a further argument. You need to be on the lookout for this sort of structure when mapping. Here’s an example:<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> Jane’s visit must have been over a weekend, since she spent two full days here, and she wouldn’t have been able to do so during the week. But Rob wasn’t in town, so the visit had to be on the first weekend in July, since that’s the only one when he wasn’t here.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Map 10:<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1423# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1029/export?token=f240eea9-3762-49b0-8777-70fd34b23432&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> The first sentence of the passage gives us Argument A, with Proposition 1 as its conclusion, and the second sentence then gives us the remaining propositions in Argument B.<br /> <br /> It is not uncommon in such multi-step arguments for some of the propositions to be left implicit. For example, here’s another way in which someone might express the same argument mapped above.<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> Jane wouldn’t have been able to spend two whole days here during the week. But the only weekend when Rob was out of town was the first one in July, so her visit must have been over that weekend.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Here Propositions 1, 2 and 4 (from Map 10) are left implicit, but it is reasonably clear that the author of the passage intended the argument expressed by that map.</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Multi-Step_Arguments_and_Multiple_Arguments_to_the_Same_Conclusion&diff=421 2022-08-10T16:26:37Z

<p>Tristandeliege: Created page with &quot;'''§2.4''' In §1.3 above we saw that there are multi-step arguments, where a premise of one argument is supported by a further argument. You need to be on the lookout for this sort of structure when mapping. Here’s an example: Jane’s visit must have been over a weekend, since she spent two full days here, and she wouldn’t have been able to do so during the week. But Rob wasn’t in town, so the visit had to be on the first weekend in July, since that’s the on...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>'''§2.4'''<br /> <br /> In §1.3 above we saw that there are multi-step arguments, where a premise of one argument is supported by a further argument. You need to be on the lookout for this sort of structure when mapping. Here’s an example:<br /> <br /> Jane’s visit must have been over a weekend, since she spent two full days here, and she wouldn’t have been able to do so during the week. But Rob wasn’t in town, so the visit had to be on the first weekend in July, since that’s the only one when he wasn’t here.<br /> <br /> Map 10:<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1423# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1029/export?token=f240eea9-3762-49b0-8777-70fd34b23432&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> The first sentence of the passage gives us Argument A, with Proposition 1 as its conclusion, and the second sentence then gives us the remaining propositions in Argument B.<br /> <br /> It is not uncommon in such multi-step arguments for some of the propositions to be left implicit. For example, here’s another way in which someone might express the same argument mapped above.<br /> <br /> Jane wouldn’t have been able to spend two whole days here during the week. But the only weekend when Rob was out of town was the first one in July, so her visit must have been over that weekend.<br /> <br /> Here Propositions 1, 2 and 4 (from Map 10) are left implicit, but it is reasonably clear that the author of the passage intended the argument expressed by that map.</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Primer&diff=420 2022-08-10T16:25:11Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>§1 [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Overview Overview]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Propositions §1.1. Propositions]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Anatomy_of_an_Argument §1.2 The Anatomy of an Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Uses_of_Arguments §1.3. The Uses of Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Mapping_the_Relations_Between_Arguments §1.4. Mapping the Relations Between Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Why_Some_Arguments_are_Stronger_than_Others §1.5. Why Some Arguments are Stronger than Others]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/How_to_Assess_Argument §1.6. How to Assess Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Glossary_of_Key_Terms_from_%C2%A71 Glossary of Key Terms from §1]<br /> <br /> <br /> §2. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/How_to_Analyze_an_Argument How to Analyze an Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Finding_the_Arguments&amp;action=edit §2.1 Finding the Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Identifying_the_Conclusion_and_All_the_Premises&amp;action=edit §2.2 Identifying the Conclusion and All the Premises]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Implicit_Premises&amp;action=edit §2.3 Implicit Premises]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Multi-Step_Arguments_and_Multiple_Arguments_to_the_Same_Conclusion §2.4 Multi-Step Arguments and Multiple Arguments to the Same Conclusion]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations §2.5 Distinguishing Arguments from Explanations]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=An_Example_of_A_Complex_Map&amp;action=edit §2.6 An Example of a Complex Map]<br /> <br /> <br /> §3. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Premises Assessing Premises]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Epistemic_Status_as_Relative_to_An_Audience_but_Objective §3.1 Epistemic Status as Relative to An Audience but Objective]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Continuum_Between_Knowledge_and_Ignorance §3.2 The Continuum Between Knowledge and Ignorance]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Epistemic_Statuses:_Certainty,_Probability,_Possibility,_and_Arbitrariness §3.3 The Epistemic Statuses: Certainty, Probability, Possibility, and Arbitrariness]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Structure_of_Knowledge_and_the_Danger_of_Circular_Reasoning §3.4 The Structure of Knowledge and the Danger of Circular Reasoning] <br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Glossary_of_Key_Terms_from_%C2%A73 Glossary of Key Terms from §3]<br /> <br /> §4. Assessing Inferences<br /> §4.1 Deduction<br /> §4.2 Arguments Applying Statistics<br /> §4.3 Induction<br /> §4.4 Statistical Generalization<br /> §4.5 Inference to the Best Explanation<br /> §4.6 Analogical Argument <br /> §4.7 Reductio ad Absurdum<br /> <br /> §5. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Conclusions_in_Light_of_Multiple_Arguments Assessing Conclusions in Light of Multiple Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Refutations_of_Arguments_(and_the_Burden_of_Proof_Principle) §5.1 Refutations of Arguments (and the Burden of Proof Principle)]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Arguments_for_Incompatible_Conclusions §5.2 Assessing Arguments for Incompatible Conclusions]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Combining_Multiple_Arguments_for_the_Same_Proposition §5.3 Combining Multiple Arguments for the Same Proposition]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=An_Example_of_A_Complex_Map&diff=419 2022-08-10T16:24:25Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§2.6'''<br /> <br /> An example of a more complex map than we’ve looked at so far. Here’s a brief passage, followed by a map of all the arguments it contains.<br /> <br /> “The laws prohibiting cannabis use should be repealed. They’re illegitimate in the first place, because the only proper basis for outlawing an activity is that it violates someone else’s rights, and you’re not violating anyone’s rights if you smoke a joint. Anyway, cannabis is way less dangerous than substances that it’s legal to buy and use. Tobacco causes cancer, whereas cannabis is being researched as a potential cancer cure! No one’s heard of a “cannabis overdose,” but it’s easy to kill yourself by overdosing on ibuprofen, which you can buy over the counter, and people die every year of alcohol poisoning. Some studies show that there are risks to driving under the influence of cannabis, but a stoned driver is way safer than a drunk driver. Yet people are allowed to go into any super market and buy a bottle of wine without being harassed by the cops, and our government is spending untold sums arresting people who buy or sell pot. Even people opposed to cannabis use should be able to see that this is money is wasted, since it’s not stopping anyone from smoking up. And, by the way, white people smoke up every but as much as anyone else, but somehow the majority of people arrested for cannabis-related offenses are black or Latino, which shows how racist the law is in practice. Instead of throwing away money on half-assed, racist enforcement of these illegitimate laws, the government could be making money on weed, by legalizing it and taxing it. That’s what Colorado did, and their tax revenues are way up, so we know it works. Crime and poverty rates also went down in Colorado, so if we want to make the rest of the country safe and rich, we might try following their example.”<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1432# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1033/export?token=5e2d16e9-d925-4496-8ff1-e900731c9b7c&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=80&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=An_Example_of_A_Complex_Map&diff=418 2022-08-10T16:24:11Z

<p>Tristandeliege: Created page with &quot;'''§2.6''' An example of a more complex map than we’ve looked at so far. Here’s a brief passage, followed by a map of all the arguments it contains. “The laws prohibiting cannabis use should be repealed. They’re illegitimate in the first place, because the only proper basis for outlawing an activity is that it violates someone else’s rights, and you’re not violating anyone’s rights if you smoke a joint. Anyway, cannabis is way less dangerous than substan...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>'''§2.6'''<br /> <br /> An example of a more complex map than we’ve looked at so far. Here’s a brief passage, followed by a map of all the arguments it contains.<br /> <br /> “The laws prohibiting cannabis use should be repealed. They’re illegitimate in the first place, because the only proper basis for outlawing an activity is that it violates someone else’s rights, and you’re not violating anyone’s rights if you smoke a joint. Anyway, cannabis is way less dangerous than substances that it’s legal to buy and use. Tobacco causes cancer, whereas cannabis is being researched as a potential cancer cure! No one’s heard of a “cannabis overdose,” but it’s easy to kill yourself by overdosing on ibuprofen, which you can buy over the counter, and people die every year of alcohol poisoning. Some studies show that there are risks to driving under the influence of cannabis, but a stoned driver is way safer than a drunk driver. Yet people are allowed to go into any super market and buy a bottle of wine without being harassed by the cops, and our government is spending untold sums arresting people who buy or sell pot. Even people opposed to cannabis use should be able to see that this is money is wasted, since it’s not stopping anyone from smoking up. And, by the way, white people smoke up every but as much as anyone else, but somehow the majority of people arrested for cannabis-related offenses are black or Latino, which shows how racist the law is in practice. Instead of throwing away money on half-assed, racist enforcement of these illegitimate laws, the government could be making money on weed, by legalizing it and taxing it. That’s what Colorado did, and their tax revenues are way up, so we know it works. Crime and poverty rates also went down in Colorado, so if we want to make the rest of the country safe and rich, we might try following their example.”<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1432# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1033/export?token=5e2d16e9-d925-4496-8ff1-e900731c9b7c&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Primer&diff=417 2022-08-10T16:22:48Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>§1 [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Overview Overview]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Propositions §1.1. Propositions]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Anatomy_of_an_Argument §1.2 The Anatomy of an Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Uses_of_Arguments §1.3. The Uses of Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Mapping_the_Relations_Between_Arguments §1.4. Mapping the Relations Between Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Why_Some_Arguments_are_Stronger_than_Others §1.5. Why Some Arguments are Stronger than Others]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/How_to_Assess_Argument §1.6. How to Assess Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Glossary_of_Key_Terms_from_%C2%A71 Glossary of Key Terms from §1]<br /> <br /> <br /> §2. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/How_to_Analyze_an_Argument How to Analyze an Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Finding_the_Arguments&amp;action=edit §2.1 Finding the Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Identifying_the_Conclusion_and_All_the_Premises&amp;action=edit §2.2 Identifying the Conclusion and All the Premises]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Implicit_Premises&amp;action=edit §2.3 Implicit Premises]<br /> §2.4 Multi-Step Arguments and Multiple Arguments to the Same Conclusion<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations §2.5 Distinguishing Arguments from Explanations]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=An_Example_of_A_Complex_Map&amp;action=edit §2.6 An Example of a Complex Map]<br /> <br /> <br /> §3. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Premises Assessing Premises]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Epistemic_Status_as_Relative_to_An_Audience_but_Objective §3.1 Epistemic Status as Relative to An Audience but Objective]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Continuum_Between_Knowledge_and_Ignorance §3.2 The Continuum Between Knowledge and Ignorance]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Epistemic_Statuses:_Certainty,_Probability,_Possibility,_and_Arbitrariness §3.3 The Epistemic Statuses: Certainty, Probability, Possibility, and Arbitrariness]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Structure_of_Knowledge_and_the_Danger_of_Circular_Reasoning §3.4 The Structure of Knowledge and the Danger of Circular Reasoning] <br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Glossary_of_Key_Terms_from_%C2%A73 Glossary of Key Terms from §3]<br /> <br /> §4. Assessing Inferences<br /> §4.1 Deduction<br /> §4.2 Arguments Applying Statistics<br /> §4.3 Induction<br /> §4.4 Statistical Generalization<br /> §4.5 Inference to the Best Explanation<br /> §4.6 Analogical Argument <br /> §4.7 Reductio ad Absurdum<br /> <br /> §5. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Conclusions_in_Light_of_Multiple_Arguments Assessing Conclusions in Light of Multiple Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Refutations_of_Arguments_(and_the_Burden_of_Proof_Principle) §5.1 Refutations of Arguments (and the Burden of Proof Principle)]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Arguments_for_Incompatible_Conclusions §5.2 Assessing Arguments for Incompatible Conclusions]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Combining_Multiple_Arguments_for_the_Same_Proposition §5.3 Combining Multiple Arguments for the Same Proposition]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Primer&diff=415 2022-08-10T16:22:34Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>§1 [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Overview Overview]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Propositions §1.1. Propositions]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Anatomy_of_an_Argument §1.2 The Anatomy of an Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Uses_of_Arguments §1.3. The Uses of Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Mapping_the_Relations_Between_Arguments §1.4. Mapping the Relations Between Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Why_Some_Arguments_are_Stronger_than_Others §1.5. Why Some Arguments are Stronger than Others]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/How_to_Assess_Argument §1.6. How to Assess Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Glossary_of_Key_Terms_from_%C2%A71 Glossary of Key Terms from §1]<br /> <br /> <br /> §2. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/How_to_Analyze_an_Argument How to Analyze an Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Finding_the_Arguments&amp;action=edit §2.1 Finding the Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Identifying_the_Conclusion_and_All_the_Premises&amp;action=edit §2.2 Identifying the Conclusion and All the Premises]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Implicit_Premises&amp;action=edit §2.3 Implicit Premises]<br /> §2.4 Multi-Step Arguments and Multiple Arguments to the Same Conclusion<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations §2.5 Distinguishing Arguments from Explanations]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=An_Example_of_A_Complex_Map&amp;action=edit §2.6 An example of a complex map]<br /> <br /> <br /> §3. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Premises Assessing Premises]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Epistemic_Status_as_Relative_to_An_Audience_but_Objective §3.1 Epistemic Status as Relative to An Audience but Objective]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Continuum_Between_Knowledge_and_Ignorance §3.2 The Continuum Between Knowledge and Ignorance]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Epistemic_Statuses:_Certainty,_Probability,_Possibility,_and_Arbitrariness §3.3 The Epistemic Statuses: Certainty, Probability, Possibility, and Arbitrariness]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Structure_of_Knowledge_and_the_Danger_of_Circular_Reasoning §3.4 The Structure of Knowledge and the Danger of Circular Reasoning] <br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Glossary_of_Key_Terms_from_%C2%A73 Glossary of Key Terms from §3]<br /> <br /> §4. Assessing Inferences<br /> §4.1 Deduction<br /> §4.2 Arguments Applying Statistics<br /> §4.3 Induction<br /> §4.4 Statistical Generalization<br /> §4.5 Inference to the Best Explanation<br /> §4.6 Analogical Argument <br /> §4.7 Reductio ad Absurdum<br /> <br /> §5. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Conclusions_in_Light_of_Multiple_Arguments Assessing Conclusions in Light of Multiple Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Refutations_of_Arguments_(and_the_Burden_of_Proof_Principle) §5.1 Refutations of Arguments (and the Burden of Proof Principle)]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Arguments_for_Incompatible_Conclusions §5.2 Assessing Arguments for Incompatible Conclusions]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Combining_Multiple_Arguments_for_the_Same_Proposition §5.3 Combining Multiple Arguments for the Same Proposition]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations&diff=414 2022-08-10T16:21:31Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§2.5'''<br /> <br /> Consider the following passage and the map:<br /> <br /> The sun is hot, because it is a ball of gases undergoing nuclear fusion, and nuclear fusion releases a great deal of heat.<br /> <br /> http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/2/22/Map11.png<br /> <br /> The use of the particle “because” may lead us to interpret this as argument, along the lines illustrated in the map. And if we knew Propositions 2 and 3, they would in fact give us a reason to believe Proposition 1. However, it is hard to imagine a situation in which someone would know Propositions 2 and 3 without already knowing Proposition 1, so it is unlikely that anyone would ever make this argument. The more natural way to interpret this passage is as giving us an '''explanation''' of Proposition 1.<br /> <br /> An argument gives one a reason to believe that its conclusion is true, whereas an explanation cites the ''causes'' of a phenomenon. That Map 7 contains an explanation, rather than an argument, is illustrated by the use of a gear shape rather than an ordinary circle.<br /> <br /> Often when we’re trying to reach conclusions about things in the future, we use premises that are also causes. For example, we might conclude that it’s about the rain by noticing that there are dark clouds and that such clouds cause rain. But when we’re not reasoning about the future, we usually need to know that a proposition is true, before we try to discover its causes. That’s certainly the case in the passage above. We first know that the sun is hot, and then we try to discover the causes that explain why it is.<br /> <br /> You can usually tell from context (and sometimes from the nuances of how inferential particles are used) whether a passage is meant to explain a proposition or to argue for it. If you’re unsure, it can help to ask yourself what question the passage is answering about the relevant proposition. If it’s an argument, it will be answering the question “How do you know it?” (or “What reason do you have for believing it?”). If it is an explanation, it will be answering the question “What caused it?”<br /> <br /> It is very easy to confuse an explanation for an argument when what is being explained is a person’s beliefs or actions. It is possible to think of a person’s actions or beliefs as effects and to try to explain them, often by citing biographical facts. Suppose that Charlie spanks his children, and we ask ourselves ''why'' he does this. Here are two answers we might come up with:<br /> <br /> (i) Charlie spanks his children because he was spanked by his father.<br /> <br /> (ii) Charlie spanks his children because he thinks it is the most effective way to discipline them.<br /> <br /> Notice that (i) gives us an explanation of Charlie’s behavior, by citing things in Charlie’s past that might cause him to behave as he does, but it doesn’t give us Charlie’s reasons for acting in this way. By contrast, (ii) indicates what Charlie’s reasons might be.<br /> <br /> Now consider another example in that concerns a belief rather than an action. Suppose that Dana believes that it is wrong to eat meat, and we ask ''why'' she believes this. Here are two answers we might get.<br /> <br /> (i) Dana’s parents believed that it is wrong to eat meat.<br /> <br /> (ii) Eating meat causes suffering.<br /> <br /> We can map these two answers as follows:<br /> <br /> Map 12 of (i):<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1427# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1031/export?token=4003b7c9-f0a8-46b7-ae8b-1ce33e940cd5&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> Map 13 of (ii):<br /> <br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1429 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1032/export?token=d96a4b24-caf0-4b2f-8ea4-760a3b86d4d2&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=100&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> Notice that (i) explains Dana’s belief by citing a factor in her biography that caused her to come to this belief, but it doesn’t give Dana any reason for believing as she does. It doesn’t help Dana or us to tell whether her belief is true. By contrast, (ii) gives something that might be Dana’s reason for believing as she does. It gives an ''argument'' that the belief is true.<br /> <br /> Explanations of our actions or beliefs treat these behaviors and beliefs as things that just ''happen'' to us. But our beliefs and actions don’t just happen to us. You are ''responsible'' for the things you do and for the things you believe. This is why you need to think about the reasons you have for your beliefs and actions, and why you need to think about and evaluate other people’s reasons as well, when judging them. Confusing explanations of beliefs (or behaviors) with arguments for them can obscure these reasons.</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations&diff=413 2022-08-10T16:21:07Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§2.5'''<br /> <br /> Consider the following passage and the map:<br /> <br /> The sun is hot, because it is a ball of gases undergoing nuclear fusion, and nuclear fusion releases a great deal of heat.<br /> <br /> http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/2/22/Map11.png<br /> <br /> The use of the particle “because” may lead us to interpret this as argument, along the lines illustrated in the map. And if we knew Propositions 2 and 3, they would in fact give us a reason to believe Proposition 1. However, it is hard to imagine a situation in which someone would know Propositions 2 and 3 without already knowing Proposition 1, so it is unlikely that anyone would ever make this argument. The more natural way to interpret this passage is as giving us an '''explanation''' of Proposition 1.<br /> <br /> An argument gives one a reason to believe that its conclusion is true, whereas an explanation cites the ''causes'' of a phenomenon. That Map 7 contains an explanation, rather than an argument, is illustrated by the use of a gear shape rather than an ordinary circle.<br /> <br /> Often when we’re trying to reach conclusions about things in the future, we use premises that are also causes. For example, we might conclude that it’s about the rain by noticing that there are dark clouds and that such clouds cause rain. But when we’re not reasoning about the future, we usually need to know that a proposition is true, before we try to discover its causes. That’s certainly the case in the passage above. We first know that the sun is hot, and then we try to discover the causes that explain why it is.<br /> <br /> You can usually tell from context (and sometimes from the nuances of how inferential particles are used) whether a passage is meant to explain a proposition or to argue for it. If you’re unsure, it can help to ask yourself what question the passage is answering about the relevant proposition. If it’s an argument, it will be answering the question “How do you know it?” (or “What reason do you have for believing it?”). If it is an explanation, it will be answering the question “What caused it?”<br /> <br /> It is very easy to confuse an explanation for an argument when what is being explained is a person’s beliefs or actions. It is possible to think of a person’s actions or beliefs as effects and to try to explain them, often by citing biographical facts. Suppose that Charlie spanks his children, and we ask ourselves ''why'' he does this. Here are two answers we might come up with:<br /> <br /> (i) Charlie spanks his children because he was spanked by his father.<br /> <br /> (ii) Charlie spanks his children because he thinks it is the most effective way to discipline them.<br /> <br /> Notice that (i) gives us an explanation of Charlie’s behavior, by citing things in Charlie’s past that might cause him to behave as he does, but it doesn’t give us Charlie’s reasons for acting in this way. By contrast, (ii) indicates what Charlie’s reasons might be.<br /> <br /> Now consider another example in that concerns a belief rather than an action. Suppose that Dana believes that it is wrong to eat meat, and we ask ''why'' she believes this. Here are two answers we might get.<br /> <br /> (i) Dana’s parents believed that it is wrong to eat meat.<br /> <br /> (ii) Eating meat causes suffering.<br /> <br /> We can map these two answers as follows:<br /> <br /> Map 12 of (i):<br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1427# https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1031/export?token=4003b7c9-f0a8-46b7-ae8b-1ce33e940cd5&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=200&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> Map 13 of (ii):<br /> [https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1429 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1032/export?token=d96a4b24-caf0-4b2f-8ea4-760a3b86d4d2&amp;target=active&amp;dpi=200&amp;view=true&amp;format=.png]<br /> <br /> Notice that (i) explains Dana’s belief by citing a factor in her biography that caused her to come to this belief, but it doesn’t give Dana any reason for believing as she does. It doesn’t help Dana or us to tell whether her belief is true. By contrast, (ii) gives something that might be Dana’s reason for believing as she does. It gives an ''argument'' that the belief is true.<br /> <br /> Explanations of our actions or beliefs treat these behaviors and beliefs as things that just ''happen'' to us. But our beliefs and actions don’t just happen to us. You are ''responsible'' for the things you do and for the things you believe. This is why you need to think about the reasons you have for your beliefs and actions, and why you need to think about and evaluate other people’s reasons as well, when judging them. Confusing explanations of beliefs (or behaviors) with arguments for them can obscure these reasons.</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations&diff=412 2022-08-10T16:17:01Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§2.5'''<br /> <br /> Consider the following passage and the map:<br /> <br /> The sun is hot, because it is a ball of gases undergoing nuclear fusion, and nuclear fusion releases a great deal of heat.<br /> <br /> http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/2/22/Map11.png</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations&diff=411 2022-08-10T16:16:30Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>'''§2.5'''<br /> <br /> http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/2/22/Map11.png</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Primer&diff=408 2022-08-10T16:15:15Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>§1 [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Overview Overview]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Propositions §1.1. Propositions]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Anatomy_of_an_Argument §1.2 The Anatomy of an Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Uses_of_Arguments §1.3. The Uses of Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Mapping_the_Relations_Between_Arguments §1.4. Mapping the Relations Between Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Why_Some_Arguments_are_Stronger_than_Others §1.5. Why Some Arguments are Stronger than Others]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/How_to_Assess_Argument §1.6. How to Assess Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Glossary_of_Key_Terms_from_%C2%A71 Glossary of Key Terms from §1]<br /> <br /> <br /> §2. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/How_to_Analyze_an_Argument How to Analyze an Argument]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Finding_the_Arguments&amp;action=edit §2.1 Finding the Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Identifying_the_Conclusion_and_All_the_Premises&amp;action=edit §2.2 Identifying the Conclusion and All the Premises]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Implicit_Premises&amp;action=edit §2.3 Implicit Premises]<br /> §2.4 Multi-Step Arguments and Multiple Arguments to the Same Conclusion<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations §2.5 Distinguishing Arguments from Explanations]<br /> §2.6 An example of a complex map<br /> <br /> <br /> §3. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Premises Assessing Premises]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Epistemic_Status_as_Relative_to_An_Audience_but_Objective §3.1 Epistemic Status as Relative to An Audience but Objective]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Continuum_Between_Knowledge_and_Ignorance §3.2 The Continuum Between Knowledge and Ignorance]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Epistemic_Statuses:_Certainty,_Probability,_Possibility,_and_Arbitrariness §3.3 The Epistemic Statuses: Certainty, Probability, Possibility, and Arbitrariness]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/The_Structure_of_Knowledge_and_the_Danger_of_Circular_Reasoning §3.4 The Structure of Knowledge and the Danger of Circular Reasoning] <br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Glossary_of_Key_Terms_from_%C2%A73 Glossary of Key Terms from §3]<br /> <br /> §4. Assessing Inferences<br /> §4.1 Deduction<br /> §4.2 Arguments Applying Statistics<br /> §4.3 Induction<br /> §4.4 Statistical Generalization<br /> §4.5 Inference to the Best Explanation<br /> §4.6 Analogical Argument <br /> §4.7 Reductio ad Absurdum<br /> <br /> §5. [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Conclusions_in_Light_of_Multiple_Arguments Assessing Conclusions in Light of Multiple Arguments]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Refutations_of_Arguments_(and_the_Burden_of_Proof_Principle) §5.1 Refutations of Arguments (and the Burden of Proof Principle)]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Assessing_Arguments_for_Incompatible_Conclusions §5.2 Assessing Arguments for Incompatible Conclusions]<br /> [http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/Combining_Multiple_Arguments_for_the_Same_Proposition §5.3 Combining Multiple Arguments for the Same Proposition]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations&diff=406 2022-08-10T16:14:54Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>[image=http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/2/22/Map11.png]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations&diff=403 2022-08-10T16:13:49Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>[image=http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/2/22/Map11.png]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations&diff=402 2022-08-10T16:13:42Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>[=imagehttp://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/2/22/Map11.png]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations&diff=401 2022-08-10T16:13:28Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>[http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/2/22/Map11.png]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations&diff=400 2022-08-10T16:13:23Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>[image= http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/2/22/Map11.png]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations&diff=399 2022-08-10T16:13:02Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>[image=http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/2/22/Map11.png]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations&diff=398 2022-08-10T16:12:46Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>[http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/2/22/Map11.png]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations&diff=396 2022-08-10T16:10:35Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>{| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |[http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/2/22/Map11.png?20220810160707]<br /> |}</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations&diff=395 2022-08-10T16:09:03Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>[http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/images/2/22/Map11.png?20220810160707]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations&diff=394 2022-08-10T16:07:34Z

<p>Tristandeliege: </p> <hr /> <div>[http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/File:Map11.png http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/File:Map11.png]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Distinguishing_Arguments_from_Explanations&diff=393 2022-08-10T16:07:26Z

<p>Tristandeliege: Created page with &quot;[http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/File:Map11.png]&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>[http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/File:Map11.png]</div>

Tristandeliege http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=File:Map11.png&diff=391 2022-08-10T16:07:07Z

<p>Tristandeliege: Map 11</p> <hr /> <div>== Summary ==<br /> Map 11</div>

Tristandeliege