The Anatomy of an Argument - Revision history

Pooyamo at 22:57, 31 August 2022

2022-08-31T22:57:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:57, 31 August 2022
Line 30:		Line 30:

	Notice that neither of these propositions on its own provides any reason at all to think that Natalie murdered Carl. If someone had no idea that Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight, then learning that the murderer had access to the garden at this time, wouldn’t give him any reason to suspect Natalie of the murder. Likewise, if someone had no idea that the murderer had access to the rose garden, then knowing that Natalie was the only one with access wouldn’t give him a reason to think she committed the murder. It’s only when we put the two propositions together that they give us a reason to believe the conclusion. The argument map represents this relationship by having the lines from the two premises meet at the circle representing the inference, and then having a single arrow go from the circle to the conclusion.		Notice that neither of these propositions on its own provides any reason at all to think that Natalie murdered Carl. If someone had no idea that Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight, then learning that the murderer had access to the garden at this time, wouldn’t give him any reason to suspect Natalie of the murder. Likewise, if someone had no idea that the murderer had access to the rose garden, then knowing that Natalie was the only one with access wouldn’t give him a reason to think she committed the murder. It’s only when we put the two propositions together that they give us a reason to believe the conclusion. The argument map represents this relationship by having the lines from the two premises meet at the circle representing the inference, and then having a single arrow go from the circle to the conclusion.

			----
			;;'''Footnote:'''

Pooyamo at 22:56, 31 August 2022

2022-08-31T22:56:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:56, 31 August 2022
Line 25:		Line 25:


	In the map, each proposition is written in its own box and labeled with a number. The inference is represented by a green circle and labeled with a letter. Thin lines connect the circle to the boxes containing the premises, and a thicker line with an arrow at the end connects the circle to box containing the conclusion.1 <ref>~~Content~~ of the ~~reference~~</ref>		In the map, each proposition is written in its own box and labeled with a number. The inference is represented by a green circle and labeled with a letter. Thin lines connect the circle to the boxes containing the premises, and a thicker line with an arrow at the end connects the circle to box containing the conclusion.1 <ref>There are different competing conventions for argument mapping, so you may find maps drawn a bit differently elsewhere, with different symbols used. But for the purposes of this course we will keep to the conventions in this Primer.</ref>
	~~{{reflist}}~~

	Both of these ways of representing the argument are meant to make it easy to see that Propositions 1 and 2 combine to provide a reason to believe Proposition 3. Another way we can express this point is to say that Propositions 1 and 2, taken together, are meant to help us to tell that Proposition 3 is true.		Both of these ways of representing the argument are meant to make it easy to see that Propositions 1 and 2 combine to provide a reason to believe Proposition 3. Another way we can express this point is to say that Propositions 1 and 2, taken together, are meant to help us to tell that Proposition 3 is true.

	Notice that neither of these propositions on its own provides any reason at all to think that Natalie murdered Carl. If someone had no idea that Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight, then learning that the murderer had access to the garden at this time, wouldn’t give him any reason to suspect Natalie of the murder. Likewise, if someone had no idea that the murderer had access to the rose garden, then knowing that Natalie was the only one with access wouldn’t give him a reason to think she committed the murder. It’s only when we put the two propositions together that they give us a reason to believe the conclusion. The argument map represents this relationship by having the lines from the two premises meet at the circle representing the inference, and then having a single arrow go from the circle to the conclusion.		Notice that neither of these propositions on its own provides any reason at all to think that Natalie murdered Carl. If someone had no idea that Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight, then learning that the murderer had access to the garden at this time, wouldn’t give him any reason to suspect Natalie of the murder. Likewise, if someone had no idea that the murderer had access to the rose garden, then knowing that Natalie was the only one with access wouldn’t give him a reason to think she committed the murder. It’s only when we put the two propositions together that they give us a reason to believe the conclusion. The argument map represents this relationship by having the lines from the two premises meet at the circle representing the inference, and then having a single arrow go from the circle to the conclusion.

GSalmieri at 21:03, 19 August 2022

2022-08-19T21:03:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:03, 19 August 2022
Line 30:		Line 30:
	Both of these ways of representing the argument are meant to make it easy to see that Propositions 1 and 2 combine to provide a reason to believe Proposition 3. Another way we can express this point is to say that Propositions 1 and 2, taken together, are meant to help us to tell that Proposition 3 is true.		Both of these ways of representing the argument are meant to make it easy to see that Propositions 1 and 2 combine to provide a reason to believe Proposition 3. Another way we can express this point is to say that Propositions 1 and 2, taken together, are meant to help us to tell that Proposition 3 is true.

	Notice that neither of these propositions on its own provides any reason at all to think that Natalie murdered Carl. If someone had no idea that Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight, then learning that the murderer had access to the garden at this time, wouldn’t give him any reason to suspect Natalie of the murder. Likewise, if someone had no idea that the murderer had access to the rose garden, then knowing that Natalie was the only one with access wouldn’t give him a reason to think she committed the murder. It’s only when we put the two propositions together that they give us a reason to believe the conclusion. ~~This~~ argument map represents this relationship by having the lines from the two premises meet at the circle representing the inference, and then having a single arrow go from the circle to the conclusion.		Notice that neither of these propositions on its own provides any reason at all to think that Natalie murdered Carl. If someone had no idea that Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight, then learning that the murderer had access to the garden at this time, wouldn’t give him any reason to suspect Natalie of the murder. Likewise, if someone had no idea that the murderer had access to the rose garden, then knowing that Natalie was the only one with access wouldn’t give him a reason to think she committed the murder. It’s only when we put the two propositions together that they give us a reason to believe the conclusion. The argument map represents this relationship by having the lines from the two premises meet at the circle representing the inference, and then having a single arrow go from the circle to the conclusion.

GSalmieri at 21:01, 19 August 2022

2022-08-19T21:01:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:01, 19 August 2022
Line 8:		Line 8:

	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
	\|1. Whoever murdered Carl had access to his rose garden at midnight.		\|'''1.''' Whoever murdered Carl had access to his rose garden at midnight.
	2. Only Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight.		'''2.''' Only Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight.
	\|-		\|-
	\| '''3.''' Natalie murdered Carl.		\| '''3.''' Natalie murdered Carl.

GSalmieri at 20:55, 19 August 2022

2022-08-19T20:55:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:55, 19 August 2022
Line 11:		Line 11:
	2. Only Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight.		2. Only Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight.
	\|-		\|-
	3. Natalie murdered Carl.		\| '''3.''' Natalie murdered Carl.
	\|}		\|}


	Each proposition has been written on its own line and labeled with a number. The premises are written first, and a line is drawn to separate them from the conclusion. This line represents the '''inference'''—the mental act of moving in thought from the premises to the conclusion.		Each proposition has been written on its own line and labeled with a number. The premises are written first, and a line is drawn to separate them from the conclusion. This line represents the '''inference'''—the mental act of moving in thought from the premises to the conclusion.

GSalmieri at 20:52, 19 August 2022

2022-08-19T20:52:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:52, 19 August 2022
Line 11:		Line 11:
	2. Only Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight.		2. Only Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight.
	\|-		\|-
	3. Natalie murdered Carl.		3. Natalie murdered Carl.
	\|}		\|}

GSalmieri at 20:51, 19 August 2022

2022-08-19T20:51:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:51, 19 August 2022
Line 11:		Line 11:
	2. Only Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight.		2. Only Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight.
	\|-		\|-
	~~\| '''~~3.~~'''~~ Natalie murdered Carl.		3. Natalie murdered Carl.
	\|}		\|}

GSalmieri at 20:51, 19 August 2022

2022-08-19T20:51:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:51, 19 August 2022
Line 6:		Line 6:

	There are a few ways in which we can represent an argument that make its structure clearer. One popular way is called standard form. Here’s what the argument we have been discussing looks like in standard form:		There are a few ways in which we can represent an argument that make its structure clearer. One popular way is called standard form. Here’s what the argument we have been discussing looks like in standard form:
	~~<blockquote>~~
	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
	\|1. Whoever murdered Carl had access to his rose garden at midnight.		\|1. Whoever murdered Carl had access to his rose garden at midnight.
Line 13:		Line 13:
	\| '''3.''' Natalie murdered Carl.		\| '''3.''' Natalie murdered Carl.
	\|}		\|}
	~~</blockquote>~~
	~~1. Whoever murdered Carl had access to his rose garden at midnight.~~

	~~2. Only Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight.~~
	~~------~~
	~~3. Natalie murdered Carl.~~

GSalmieri at 20:50, 19 August 2022

2022-08-19T20:50:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:50, 19 August 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	;'''§1.2'''		;'''§1.2'''
	As the term is used in philosophy, an '''argument''' is a set of related propositions (called '''premises''') that is given as a reason for believing a further proposition (called the '''conclusion'''). Consider, for example, the following, simple argument:		As the term is used in philosophy, an '''argument''' is a set of related propositions (called '''premises''') that is given as a reason for believing a further proposition (called the '''conclusion'''). Consider, for example, the following, simple argument:
	~~<blockquote>~~		Whoever murdered Carl had to have access to his rose garden at midnight, and the only person who did was Natalie, therefore Natalie must be the murderer.
	Whoever murdered Carl had to have access to his rose garden at midnight, and the only person who did was Natalie, therefore Natalie must be the murderer.
	~~</blockquote>~~
	Here the conclusion is that Natalie murdered Carl, and there are two premises: (1) that whoever murdered Carl had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight, and (2) that only Natalie had such access.		Here the conclusion is that Natalie murdered Carl, and there are two premises: (1) that whoever murdered Carl had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight, and (2) that only Natalie had such access.

Line 14:		Line 13:
	\| '''3.''' Natalie murdered Carl.		\| '''3.''' Natalie murdered Carl.
	\|}		\|}
			</blockquote>
			1. Whoever murdered Carl had access to his rose garden at midnight.

			2. Only Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight.
			------
			3. Natalie murdered Carl.

	~~1. Whoever murdered Carl had access to his rose garden at midnight.~~

	~~2. Only Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight.~~
	~~------~~
	~~3. Natalie murdered Carl.~~
	~~</blockquote>~~

	Each proposition has been written on its own line and labeled with a number. The premises are written first, and a line is drawn to separate them from the conclusion. This line represents the '''inference'''—the mental act of moving in thought from the premises to the conclusion.		Each proposition has been written on its own line and labeled with a number. The premises are written first, and a line is drawn to separate them from the conclusion. This line represents the '''inference'''—the mental act of moving in thought from the premises to the conclusion.

GSalmieri at 20:46, 19 August 2022

2022-08-19T20:46:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:46, 19 August 2022
Line 14:		Line 14:
	\| '''3.''' Natalie murdered Carl.		\| '''3.''' Natalie murdered Carl.
	\|}		\|}

			1. Whoever murdered Carl had access to his rose garden at midnight.

			2. Only Natalie had access to Carl’s rose garden at midnight.
			------
			3. Natalie murdered Carl.
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>