September 2, 2005

 

I. Arguments and How We Deal With Them
A. What Arguments Are

This is a course about arguments. Two meanings of “argument”:

 

1) dispute, often a heated or angry dispute;

2) a set of reasons or considerations intended to support some statement.

 

We’re interested in the arguments of the 2^nd kind. Some places you encounter these kinds of arguments:

 

1) In newspapers, especially on the editorial pages. Similarly, in discussions (written or oral) about controversial issues.

2) Whenever you think about something or consider what someone else has said about something, you are considering an argument.

3) In courses, when teachers (or students) defend some claim.

4) In papers you write you will give arguments for whatever thesis, or point, you defend.

 

First key point: distinguish disputes from rational arguments (or proofs).

 

For a terrific illustration of this, see Monty Python’s skit, “The Argument Clinic”. You can get the transcript here: http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

This isn’t as good as seeing it done, but it’s not bad.

 

You might also take a look at “The Socratic Argument Clinic” here:

http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sclinic.htm

 

 

B. The Subject Matter of Arguments
There can be arguments about anything:

1) Major Social Issues. For example, abortion, saving Social Security, tax cuts, the causes of crime, whether violence on TV is harmful, the effectiveness of school voucher systems, whether stem cell research should be permitted. In each case, scientific results matter. There are arguments about what the results show and about what to do in their light.

2) Major personal issues. Where to go to school, what to major in, which party to go to Friday night.

3) Lesser issues of all sorts. e.g., should teachers grade on a curve, should there be a requirement that all students take math, is eating red meat really bad for you, will the Chicago Cubs ever win the world series?

On any of these issues, you can get some facts and draw a conclusion. That’s an argument. Or you may hear someone else’s argument on the topic and then think about that argument.

C. People react to arguments in a variety of ways
This classification is from Issac Watts' Logick (1772) and stolen by me from a manuscript by Douglas Walton. The types are:

The credulous person
The person of contradiction
The dogmatist
The skeptic

 

Question: What's the difference between the person of contradiction and the dogmatist?
Answer: The latter holds a constant view, never changing. The former disagrees with everything, thus changing sides in response to what those before him say.

 

Similar to the Credulous person is the person who insists that in all controversial cases somehow everyone is right. Such people are fond of saying that different things are true for different people or different groups, that some issues are matters of opinion about everyone (or no one) is right. We will call them "relativists."

Here’s another point to notice: some people assess claims and arguments not by their content but by who presents them. E.g., some people detest Pres. Bush. If he says something, they disagree. They are selectively persons of disagreement. Others like the President, they agree when he says it. Maybe they are selectively credulous.

All these people share a common trait: they fail to engage the arguments they encounter. Suppose I defend a view: all stem cell research should be prohibited. You offer a contrary argument. If you fit into one of these categories, you will react in the ways described. What you won't do is respond rationally, or be a reasoner.

Rational people try their best to deal with the information they receive and form conclusions on its basis. Sometimes they stick to their guns, and sometimes they are persuaded by new evidence. Sometimes they acknowledge that people they dislike have made a good argument or that those they like have not. They see the issues as real issues to which there are correct answers, even if they are hard to figure out. In addition to trying to deal with information in this way, (successful) rational thinkers draw the right conclusions from the information they have. Rational thinkers can: distinguish genuine arguments from other things, understand and interpret those arguments, evaluate them. They have an open mind, change when the arguments call for it, stick to their views when the arguments call for it, go along with popular opinion when it’s right, go against popular opinion when it’s called for, form beliefs in the face of uncertainty. [This is the second key point.]

 

An example - see exchange from NY Times on pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions.

II. The Goal of the Course
To turn you into rational people. I’d like you to have the right goals or motivation - to evaluate information in the manner just described, and to be able to do it effectively.

 

All I can really test and grade is how well you acquire the skill. Whether you apply the skill elsewhere in your life is your business. But I do think that, individually and collectively, we'd be better off if more of us were rational people

 

The course is more a “skills” course than a “content” course. That is not an entirely clear and precise distinction. Roughly, the goal is to teach you how to do something – analyze an argument – rather than to present a lot of facts about a topic. Of course, I will teach the skill by telling you the facts about how to do it. So there are a lot of facts you have to learn. But there is no way you will learn the skill by listening to me. Participation and practice will be crucial. That’s why there are lots of short tests, especially during the first part of the course.

 

Each day I will attempt to identify a few of the key points about argument analysis that we cover in class that day. We’ll often spend a lot of time on some examples, but your goal should be to extract from the discussion of those examples some more general point. We may spend some time talking about that. I’ll ask, “What was the point of thinking about that example?” (There have been two such points so far: what an argument is, what a rational person is.)
 

III. Organization of the Course
A. There will be some explanation and clarification of what's in the book. Mostly, application of what's in the book to examples. Class will often begin with "Any questions?" Then examples. You are expected to come to class having read the relevant portions of the text. We will go through it quickly. Ask questions about what you don't understand. We will apply the ideas to additional examples, but you need already to have the basic ideas.

 

B. Grades: 100 points possible. Roughly, 90 for an A, 80 for B. Some modification of that possible later on. Bonus points will be awarded from time to time for special contributions.

C. We will regularly go over exercises from the text in class. Typically, I will tell you ahead of time to prepare them. Bring book to class everyday.

D. Tests & Homework Assignments - See syllabus. Notice that of the 10 quizzes/assignments, only 7 will be counted. My current plan is to use all quizzes, but it may be that for some topics, a relatively short homework will be more useful. Toward the end of the semester, there will be 2 longer assignments, worth more points. And then a final assignment.

 

E. Notes, assignments, announcements will be on the course website: http://www.ling.rochester.edu/~feldman/philosophy105/index.html

 

Assignment for next time: Read pp. 1–33, look over exercises on pp. 32-3.