Mapping the Relations Between Arguments - Revision history

GSalmieri: /* Complex Maps */

2022-08-20T02:58:22Z

Complex Maps

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:58, 19 August 2022
Line 49:		Line 49:
	\|}		\|}

	Argument E is a third argument for Proposition 3. I expect you’ll agree that it a bad argument. The map shows two ''objections'' to this argument, each symbolized by a red octagon. Objections are (in effect) arguments that something is wrong with the argument they're objecting too.		Argument E is a third argument for Proposition 3. I expect you’ll agree that it a bad argument. The map shows two ''objections'' to this argument, each symbolized by a red octagon. [[Objections]] are (in effect) arguments that something is wrong with the argument they're objecting too.

	Objection H objects to Proposition 11, which is a premise of Argument E. When someone objects to a premise, he is arguing that it is not a suitable premise. This could be because the premise us false (as is the case with Proposition 11), but there are other reasons why a premise might not be suitable. For example, we might not be in a position to tell whether it's true, which would make it useless as a premise. Or we might only have reason to think that it's true if we already believe the conclusion, in which case it would be a case of [[circular reasoning]]. In addition to objections to premises, there are objections to inferences. These are arguments that the inference is faulty.		Objection H objects to Proposition 11, which is a premise of Argument E. When someone objects to a premise, he is arguing that it is not a suitable premise. This could be because the premise us false (as is the case with Proposition 11), but there are other reasons why a premise might not be suitable. For example, we might not be in a position to tell whether it's true, which would make it useless as a premise. Or we might only have reason to think that it's true if we already believe the conclusion, in which case it would be a case of [[circular reasoning]]. In addition to objections to premises, there are objections to inferences. These are arguments that the inference is faulty.
Line 55:		Line 55:
	Objection I objects to Inference E. To object to an inference is to argue that it's not a good inference—that, even we knew the premises to be true, the inference wouldn't give us a reason to believe the conclusion. We'll discuss the factors that make for a good or bad inferences later.		Objection I objects to Inference E. To object to an inference is to argue that it's not a good inference—that, even we knew the premises to be true, the inference wouldn't give us a reason to believe the conclusion. We'll discuss the factors that make for a good or bad inferences later.

	Inference F is represented by a red inference symbol instead of the usual green one because it represents a ''counterargument''. Counterarguments are an arguments ''against'' conclusions, rather than ''for'' them. Counterargument F gives us a reason to think that its conclusion, Proposition 3 is ''false''. If we wanted to treat F as a regular argument (represented by a green symbol), then it's conclusion would be that “Natalie did ''not'' murder Carl.” We could write this conclusion out as a distinct proposition, in its own box, but since it is equivalent to saying that Proposition 3 is false, it’s nice to have a way to relate F to Proposition 3 on the map, so that we could see a glance that F is arguing against the very same conclusion that Arguments A, B, and E are arguing for. This is the purpose of the red counterargument symbol.		Inference F is represented by a red inference symbol instead of the usual green one because it represents a ''counterargument''. [[Counterarguments]] are an arguments ''against'' conclusions, rather than ''for'' them. Counterargument F gives us a reason to think that its conclusion, Proposition 3 is ''false''. If we wanted to treat F as a regular argument (represented by a green symbol), then it's conclusion would be that “Natalie did ''not'' murder Carl.” We could write this conclusion out as a distinct proposition, in its own box, but since it is equivalent to saying that Proposition 3 is false, it’s nice to have a way to relate F to Proposition 3 on the map, so that we could see a glance that F is arguing against the very same conclusion that Arguments A, B, and E are arguing for. This is the purpose of the red counterargument symbol.

	Argument G supports Proposition 14, which is a premise for Counterargument F.		Argument G supports Proposition 14, which is a premise for Counterargument F.

	The point of an argument is to help us tell what’s true. So, if we end up in a situation where we have arguments with opposite conclusions as we do in Map 4, then there must be an error somewhere. In this map, Objections H and I, indicate what's wrong with Argument E. But even if we eliminate Argument E, we have two other arguments for Proposition 3, and we have a counterargument against this same proposition. Proposition 3 cannot be both true and false, so something must be wrong either with Arguments A and B or with Counterargument F. Let’s turn now to the things that can go wrong with arguments, and why some arguments are better than others.		The point of an argument is to help us tell what’s true. So, if we end up in a situation where we have arguments with opposite conclusions as we do in Map 4, then there must be an error somewhere. In this map, Objections H and I, indicate what's wrong with Argument E. But even if we eliminate Argument E, we have two other arguments for Proposition 3, and we have a counterargument against this same proposition. Proposition 3 cannot be both true and false, so something must be wrong either with Arguments A and B or with Counterargument F. Let’s turn now to the things that can go wrong with arguments, and why some arguments are better than others.

GSalmieri: /* Complex Maps */

2022-08-20T02:56:26Z

Complex Maps

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:56, 19 August 2022
Line 46:		Line 46:
	\| Map 4:		\| Map 4:
	\|-		\|-
	\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1530?token=63fce241-4d83-45dc-87e5-510a92853d37 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1087/export?token=5b0620f5-e769-4271-a084-3b120f7d17f5&target=current_publication&dpi=30&view=true&format=.png]		\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1530?token=63fce241-4d83-45dc-87e5-510a92853d37 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1087/export?token=5b0620f5-e769-4271-a084-3b120f7d17f5&target=current_publication&dpi=75&view=true&format=.png]
	\|}		\|}

GSalmieri: /* Complex Maps */

2022-08-20T02:56:08Z

Complex Maps

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:56, 19 August 2022
Line 46:		Line 46:
	\| Map 4:		\| Map 4:
	\|-		\|-
	\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1530?token=63fce241-4d83-45dc-87e5-510a92853d37 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1087/export?token=5b0620f5-e769-4271-a084-3b120f7d17f5&target=current_publication&dpi=50&view=true&format=.png]		\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1530?token=63fce241-4d83-45dc-87e5-510a92853d37 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1087/export?token=5b0620f5-e769-4271-a084-3b120f7d17f5&target=current_publication&dpi=30&view=true&format=.png]
	\|}		\|}

GSalmieri: /* Complex Maps */

2022-08-20T02:55:47Z

Complex Maps

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:55, 19 August 2022
Line 48:		Line 48:
	\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1530?token=63fce241-4d83-45dc-87e5-510a92853d37 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1087/export?token=5b0620f5-e769-4271-a084-3b120f7d17f5&target=current_publication&dpi=50&view=true&format=.png]		\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1530?token=63fce241-4d83-45dc-87e5-510a92853d37 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1087/export?token=5b0620f5-e769-4271-a084-3b120f7d17f5&target=current_publication&dpi=50&view=true&format=.png]
	\|}		\|}
	~~Argument D is a third argument for Proposition 3. I expect you’ll agree that it a bad argument. We will discuss what makes some arguments better than others in the next section.~~

	~~Inference~~ E is ~~represented by~~ a ~~red circle instead of the usual green one because Argument E is an~~ argument ~~''against'' proposition~~ 3~~, rather than for~~ it. The ~~conclusion of the Argument E is “Natalie did~~ ''~~not~~'' ~~murder Carl.” We could write~~ this ~~out as its own proposition in a separate box~~, ~~but since this conclusion is equivalent to saying that Proposition 3 is false, it’s nice to have~~ a ~~way to relate Argument E to Proposition 3 on the map. That’s what we use the~~ red ~~circle for~~. ~~It helps us to see at a glance~~ that ~~Argument E~~ is ~~arguing against~~ the ~~very same conclusion that Arguments A, B, and D are arguing for~~.		Argument E is a third argument for Proposition 3. I expect you’ll agree that it a bad argument. The map shows two ''objections'' to this argument, each symbolized by a red octagon. Objections are (in effect) arguments that something is wrong with the argument they're objecting too.

	The point of an argument is to help us tell what’s true. So, if we end up in a situation where we have arguments with opposite conclusions as we do in Map 4, then there must be something wrong with ~~at least one of the arguments~~. Let’s turn now to the things that can go wrong with arguments, and why some arguments are better than others.		Objection H objects to Proposition 11, which is a premise of Argument E. When someone objects to a premise, he is arguing that it is not a suitable premise. This could be because the premise us false (as is the case with Proposition 11), but there are other reasons why a premise might not be suitable. For example, we might not be in a position to tell whether it's true, which would make it useless as a premise. Or we might only have reason to think that it's true if we already believe the conclusion, in which case it would be a case of [[circular reasoning]]. In addition to objections to premises, there are objections to inferences. These are arguments that the inference is faulty.

			Objection I objects to Inference E. To object to an inference is to argue that it's not a good inference—that, even we knew the premises to be true, the inference wouldn't give us a reason to believe the conclusion. We'll discuss the factors that make for a good or bad inferences later.

			Inference F is represented by a red inference symbol instead of the usual green one because it represents a ''counterargument''. Counterarguments are an arguments ''against'' conclusions, rather than ''for'' them. Counterargument F gives us a reason to think that its conclusion, Proposition 3 is ''false''. If we wanted to treat F as a regular argument (represented by a green symbol), then it's conclusion would be that “Natalie did ''not'' murder Carl.” We could write this conclusion out as a distinct proposition, in its own box, but since it is equivalent to saying that Proposition 3 is false, it’s nice to have a way to relate F to Proposition 3 on the map, so that we could see a glance that F is arguing against the very same conclusion that Arguments A, B, and E are arguing for. This is the purpose of the red counterargument symbol.

			Argument G supports Proposition 14, which is a premise for Counterargument F.

			The point of an argument is to help us tell what’s true. So, if we end up in a situation where we have arguments with opposite conclusions as we do in Map 4, then there must be an error somewhere. In this map, Objections H and I, indicate what's wrong with Argument E. But even if we eliminate Argument E, we have two other arguments for Proposition 3, and we have a counterargument against this same proposition. Proposition 3 cannot be both true and false, so something must be wrong either with Arguments A and B or with Counterargument F. Let’s turn now to the things that can go wrong with arguments, and why some arguments are better than others.

GSalmieri: /* Complex Maps */

2022-08-20T02:14:22Z

Complex Maps

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:14, 19 August 2022
Line 46:		Line 46:
	\| Map 4:		\| Map 4:
	\|-		\|-
	\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1530?token=63fce241-4d83-45dc-87e5-510a92853d37 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1087/export?token=5b0620f5-e769-4271-a084-3b120f7d17f5&target=current_publication&dpi=70&view=true&format=.png]		\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1530?token=63fce241-4d83-45dc-87e5-510a92853d37 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1087/export?token=5b0620f5-e769-4271-a084-3b120f7d17f5&target=current_publication&dpi=50&view=true&format=.png]
	\|}		\|}
	Argument D is a third argument for Proposition 3. I expect you’ll agree that it a bad argument. We will discuss what makes some arguments better than others in the next section.		Argument D is a third argument for Proposition 3. I expect you’ll agree that it a bad argument. We will discuss what makes some arguments better than others in the next section.

GSalmieri: /* Complex Maps */

2022-08-20T02:14:09Z

Complex Maps

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:14, 19 August 2022
Line 46:		Line 46:
	\| Map 4:		\| Map 4:
	\|-		\|-
	\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1530?token=63fce241-4d83-45dc-87e5-510a92853d37 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1087/export?token=5b0620f5-e769-4271-a084-3b120f7d17f5&target=current_publication&dpi=90&view=true&format=.png]		\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1530?token=63fce241-4d83-45dc-87e5-510a92853d37 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1087/export?token=5b0620f5-e769-4271-a084-3b120f7d17f5&target=current_publication&dpi=70&view=true&format=.png]
	\|}		\|}
	Argument D is a third argument for Proposition 3. I expect you’ll agree that it a bad argument. We will discuss what makes some arguments better than others in the next section.		Argument D is a third argument for Proposition 3. I expect you’ll agree that it a bad argument. We will discuss what makes some arguments better than others in the next section.

GSalmieri: /* Complex Maps */

2022-08-20T02:13:53Z

Complex Maps

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:13, 19 August 2022
Line 44:		Line 44:
	Now let’s consider a larger map that includes all the arguments we’ve looked at plus three others.		Now let’s consider a larger map that includes all the arguments we’ve looked at plus three others.
	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
	\| Map 1:		\| Map 4:
	\|-		\|-
	\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/~~1478~~?token=~~41804760~~-~~1661~~-~~42e4~~-~~9c4c~~-~~c0628a7f964e~~ https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/~~1021~~/export?token=~~ec7f2d7c~~-~~7547~~-~~4096~~-~~8b07~~-~~4215c24183d1~~&target=~~active~~&dpi=50&view=true&format=.png]		\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1530?token=63fce241-4d83-45dc-87e5-510a92853d37 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1087/export?token=5b0620f5-e769-4271-a084-3b120f7d17f5&target=current_publication&dpi=90&view=true&format=.png]
	\|}		\|}
	Argument D is a third argument for Proposition 3. I expect you’ll agree that it a bad argument. We will discuss what makes some arguments better than others in the next section.		Argument D is a third argument for Proposition 3. I expect you’ll agree that it a bad argument. We will discuss what makes some arguments better than others in the next section.

GSalmieri: /* Chains of Argument */

2022-08-20T02:13:02Z

Chains of Argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:13, 19 August 2022
Line 36:		Line 36:
	\| Map 3:		\| Map 3:
	\|-		\|-
	\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1529?token=f7357a05-5386-49c4-8aa7-e31abec7aa60 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1086/export?token=4f5e23ce-2bb6-4d17-9a58-d3999fb673ae&target=current_publication&dpi=75&view=true&format=.png]		\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1529?token=f7357a05-5386-49c4-8aa7-e31abec7aa60 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1086/export?token=4f5e23ce-2bb6-4d17-9a58-d3999fb673ae&target=current_publication&dpi=85&view=true&format=.png]
	\|}		\|}
	Notice that Argument A (from Map 1) is part of this larger map. One of its premises is now the conclusion of another argument, labeled C, and one of C's premises is a premise for a further argument, labeled D. So, we can think of D, C, and A as a chain of arguments, with Proposition 3 as their ultimate conclusion. (Or, to put it another way, we can think of D, C, and A as making up a three-step argument for Proposition 3. And, we can think of Propositions 2 and 8 as intermediate conclusions of this larger argument.)		Notice that Argument A (from Map 1) is part of this larger map. One of its premises is now the conclusion of another argument, labeled C, and one of C's premises is a premise for a further argument, labeled D. So, we can think of D, C, and A as a chain of arguments, with Proposition 3 as their ultimate conclusion. (Or, to put it another way, we can think of D, C, and A as making up a three-step argument for Proposition 3. And, we can think of Propositions 2 and 8 as intermediate conclusions of this larger argument.)

GSalmieri: /* Complex Maps */

2022-08-20T02:11:43Z

Complex Maps

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:11, 19 August 2022
Line 42:		Line 42:
	===Complex Maps===		===Complex Maps===

	Now let’s consider a larger map that includes all the arguments we’ve looked at plus ~~two~~ others.		Now let’s consider a larger map that includes all the arguments we’ve looked at plus three others.
	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
	\| Map 1:		\| Map 1:

GSalmieri: /* Chains of Argument */

2022-08-20T02:10:57Z

Chains of Argument

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:10, 19 August 2022
Line 38:		Line 38:
	\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1529?token=f7357a05-5386-49c4-8aa7-e31abec7aa60 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1086/export?token=4f5e23ce-2bb6-4d17-9a58-d3999fb673ae&target=current_publication&dpi=75&view=true&format=.png]		\|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1529?token=f7357a05-5386-49c4-8aa7-e31abec7aa60 https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1086/export?token=4f5e23ce-2bb6-4d17-9a58-d3999fb673ae&target=current_publication&dpi=75&view=true&format=.png]
	\|}		\|}
	Notice that Argument A (from Map 1) is part of this larger map. One of its premises is now the conclusion of another argument, labeled C. So, we can think of C and A ~~taken together~~ as a ~~larger~~, ~~two~~-step argument for Proposition 3.		Notice that Argument A (from Map 1) is part of this larger map. One of its premises is now the conclusion of another argument, labeled C, and one of C's premises is a premise for a further argument, labeled D. So, we can think of D, C, and A as a chain of arguments, with Proposition 3 as their ultimate conclusion. (Or, to put it another way, we can think of D, C, and A as making up a three-step argument for Proposition 3. And, we can think of Propositions 2 and 8 as intermediate conclusions of this larger argument.)

	===Complex Maps===		===Complex Maps===