I. Preliminaries

Be sure to read the chapter. We will not review all the sections in class.

 

Review the chart on p. 165. You should understand every step of this. The points about evaluation kick in once an argument is properly reconstructed according to the principles here.

 

The material on evaluation is mainly about evaluating premises. The key question will typically be: is it reasonable to believe the premises of the argument

II. Some Basic Rules

 

Much of this is in the text, and I will go over it quickly here. One aspect of this will be developed in detail.

 

A. Don’t object to the conclusion

 

You’ve gone to the trouble of formulating the argument. Presumably, it is well-formed. It is alleged to establish the conclusion. Serious argument analysis requires then looking at the premises of the argument. To object to the conclusion is to ignore the argument.

 

B. Criticisms must be directed at specific premises.
Once you've successfully reconstructed an argument, it is almost always well-formed. The only way you can criticize it is by claiming that it has a false or unjustified premise (or, in the case of cogent arguments, that it is defeated). There is no such thing as a “general” criticism. It must be focused. (There are the unusual cases in which you can reasonably reject the conjunction of the premises of an argument without rejecting any individual premise. But that is very rare. E.g., if someone produces an argument for the conclusion that it never snows in Rochester, it may be that you don’t see where it goes wrong. But you are nevertheless sure that it does go wrong.) In your papers it is important that you make it very clear which premise or premises you are criticizing.

 

In discussions of arguments, you will sometimes find yourself saying: here’s the problem with this argument, and you’ll make some point. And I’ll say, “Which premise are you objecting to?” If you can’t tell, then you haven’t fully understood the argument or the objection.

 

C. Don’t accept an argument simply because you agree with its conclusion

 

This is a bad habit. You might then accept a similar argument for a mistaken conclusion.

D. Criticisms must be substantial
It’s difficult to define this precisely, but the idea is reasonably clear. Simply saying that a premise may be false or that some people disagree is insubstantial. A clear counterexample to a universal generalization is a substantial criticism. We’ll be looking at examples to clarify what counts as a substantial criticism.

 

This is part of a larger point. The idea of argument analysis is not to find something critical you can say about an argument. It’s to see whether, on balance, the argument makes a good case for its conclusion. We have set the standards lower than we might have. We might have said that an argument succeeds (= is strong) only if it makes its conclusion certain, establishes it beyond all possible doubt. Perhaps arguments that do that are “proofs” or “decisive proofs”. Our account of a strong argument demands less - just more reasonable than not. Of course, in analysis you can say that an argument is quite strong, though it has a premise that, while quite reasonable, is open to some possible doubt.

 

E. Competing arguments cannot be strong

 

This is a puzzling idea. We often say that there are good arguments on both sides of an issue. Our definitions preclude this. There can be interesting arguments on both sides. It need not be that one argument is dumb.

 

Of course, the arguments on each side may be weak.

 

**

A lot of what we will consider in connection with argument analysis has to do with problems of meaning. We will discuss the role of definitions, vagueness and ambiguity, and the like. That will start next time. Read the rest of Ch. 7.

 

I will not discuss Sec. II of Ch. 7 in class. Ask questions about this if you have them.

 

III. Flimsy Criticisms

 

This is an elaboration of II.D above.

 

A. See sidebar in text, pp. 170-1.

This presents an explanation of the fact/opinion distinction. The authors think that it is best to see the fact/opinion distinction as a distinction among questions. And they argue that there is a third category: reasoned judgment. Let's use their examples to try to get at the distinctions.

1) Factual questions - those "with one right answer". Eg., "What is the boiling point of lead?"
2) Reasoned questions - these are questions with better or worse answers. Eg., "How can we best address the most basic and significant economic problems of the nation today?"
3) Opinion questions - Those with as many answers as there are different human preferences. Eg., "Which would you prefer, a vacation in the mountains or one at the seashore?"

Presumably, opinions are the sorts of things that can be answers to opinion questions, facts are the sorts of things that can be answers to factual questions.

Try to classify the following:
a) How many planets are there circling the sun?
b) Was OJ guilty? (Did he do it?)
c) How tall are you?
d) Do you like to watch baseball more than you like to watch football?
e) Does taking Vitamin C help prevent colds?
f) What is the best route for driving to Buffalo?
g) Is there life on other planets?
h) What caused the extinction of the dinosaurs?
i) Would Neil Diamond prefer a vacation in the mountains or one at the seashore?

This is a confused mess.

1. Why are there different good answers to some questions?

The authors are right in thinking that some questions get alternative good answers. Why does this happen? Their example of an opinion question is like that. And so are (c) and (d). Notice that each of these has the word “you” in it. The interrogative sentence in effect asks a different question for each person. Compare their question to (i). There is a fact about each person’s preferences, as well as each person’s height (question (c)). So one reason a question gets different right answers is it actually asks different questions of each person who attempts to answer it. It asks something about that person, and the fact about that person may be different than the facts about others (e.g., their heights, or their preferences may differ). But there is a right answer for each person. Using the word “opinion” here simply confuses matters.

 

Second, some questions are ambiguous. Consider (f). There are different measures of “best route” - fastest, cheapest, most scenic. There are facts about which route has the fewest tolls, which (typically) has the shortest driving time, etc. If the question is made clear, a unique correct answer can be given.

 

Third, some questions can have different reasonable answers because they are hard questions about which our evidence is inconclusive and varies from one person to another. Perhaps (h) is like that. Again, however, there is a right answer.

 

2. Some Distinctions

It may be that the fact/opinion distinction is used in a varying (and confusing) way to call attention to a variety different distinctions.

1. Controversial v. uncontroversial statements
There are differences in the extent of agreement or disagreement about individual statements. Variations on this idea:
a) Some statements prompt widespread agreement among almost everyone concerning their truth value.
b) Some statements enjoy widespread agreement among experts but not among all people.
c) Some statements provoke disagreement among experts. See several items on the list above in section (C). Note well: there is a unique right answer to every one of these. There are facts. It’s just that in some cases they are not well known or widely known. But sometimes individuals have well justified answers even in the case of controversial matters. (Eg., consider OJ’s beliefs about whether he did it. He knows.)

2. Vague/imprecise statements v. precise statements
Some sentences are vague, ambiguous, or imprecise. Different more precise interpretations may yield different answers. But there is no sense in which any answer is "just opinion". See (f). By “best” do we mean: prettiest, fastest, cheapest, some combination of these? But once you fill out the sentence there is a definite answer. (Well, maybe not for “prettiest”.) [We’ll talk more about these matters over the next few classes.]

3. Statements about preferences v. statements not about preferences
Some sentences are about the preferences, likes and dislikes, etc. of people. There are facts about these matters, just as there are facts about their heights, what vacations they took last year, etc. Cf., (i) and their question. Does putting the 'you' in there change the subject matter in some drastic way? It's just that the same sentence can be used for lots of people.

A point about preferences: Obviously, people can have different preferences. When you say “Hamburgers are better than pizza,” there are a number of things you might mean. One possibility is that you are expressing personal preference. In that case, the statement you make is “I prefer hamburgers to pizza.” And that is either true or false. It’s the sort of thing that can, in principle, be supported by evidence about what you say, what you eat, etc. But that statement does not conflict with someone else’s opposite preference. Another possibility is that your sentence is incomplete. Maybe you mean “Hamburgers are better than pizza in terms of nutritional content, or in terms of cost per calorie, etc.” And these are statements that can in principle be given rational support. There are other possibilities, but each way that you spell out what you might mean puts the statement in the factual category.

 

4. Evaluations v. non-evaluations. We sometimes evaluate things. We say that things are good or bad in some respect, or better or worse than some other thing. Sometimes people invoke the word “opinion” in these cases. But that’s confusing as well. Consider the statement that Shaquille O’Neal is a better basketball player than I am. I doubt that anyone would want to say that this is mere “opinion”. But then not all evaluations are opinions.

5. Well supported v. not well-supported statements
The discussion so far has tried to make the fact/opinion distinction a distinction that is drawn in terms of the subject matter of a statement (or a belief). Some are thought to fall into one category, others into the other (or one of the others). Maybe the fact/opinion distinction is not a distinction based on the subject matter of the belief. Rather, it is distinction based on how well supported the belief is. Some beliefs are well-supported, some are not. That is, sometimes we have good evidence and sometimes we don’t. But one person’s belief on a given topic may be well-supported while another’s is not. So, this distinction is not to made in terms what the subject matter is.

 

6. Facts v. Beliefs

One standard conception of the term “facts” holds that facts are true propositions. “Opinions” are beliefs or thoughts people have. This makes the discussion of the fact/opinion distinction very confusing. Facts are things in the world independent of us. (Recall the theory of truth.) Opinions are things in our heads - they are beliefs about what the facts are. So, there is an obvious distinction between facts and opinions (construed this way). But then giving a list of sentences and saying that some are facts and some are opinions makes no sense. And criticizing a premise of an argument on the grounds that it is an opinion is confused. The premise is a statement. It can be criticized for being unjustified or false. The person who gave the argument presumably believes - has the opinion - that the premise is true. But that’s no criticism of the premise or of the argument.

It is possible that the fact/opinion distinction is used to describe the distinctions 1-6 we’ve just talked about. When people talk about it, they have different things in mind on different occasions. Thus, sometimes when a person describes something as an opinion, it’s meant that it’s about preferences. Another times it’s meant that it’s controversial. Another time it’s meant that it’s not well-supported. And so on.

The important point for us is that this is not an important matter to take account of in doing argument analysis and critical thinking. With respect to each issue and each argument, the crucial thing is whether the argument is strong. Whatever the subject matter, just evaluate the argument as it comes along.

 

Conclusion: If you never invoke the fact/opinion distinction again, you'll be better off. If you hear others use it, try to figure out if there's anything useful they have in mind.
 

B. Some other confusing distinctions                                                                                      

This is not the only alleged distinction that disintegrates under scrutiny. Sometimes people invoke a subjective/objective distinction. There are various things they might mean. Some of them may make sense. But you rarely can tell, and it’s best avoided.

 

Invoking these names - “opinion”, “subjective judgment” - and saying things such as “who’s to say whether that’s true” are argument stoppers. They cutoff serious discussion without making any clear point. Serious evaluation requires looking at an argument and deciding whether it is well-formed (valid, inductively strong (cogent)) or ill-formed, and, if well-formed, evaluating its premises. Evaluating its premises involves deciding whether it is reasonable to believe that they are true.

© Richard Feldman, 2005