Phil 1001H
Notes and remarks on Weston readings
Weston’s 39 rules set out in chapters I-VIII consist of a guide regarding reasoning by means of argumentation. It is also a guide to the analysis and synthesis of arguments. It provides tools by which you can analyze arguments, that is, break them down into their parts and examine and even judge whether the parts fit together sufficiently to form a cogent / coherent set of premises that make up an argument short or long. As for synthesis, it provides an account of how to put together your own reasoned arguments for the sake of further understanding connections and generating new conclusions or for the sake of forming persuasive sets of reasoned premises making up arguments that are plausible or even perhaps convincing.
As indicated in class, Aristotle (for 20 years a student of Plato who was a companion or student of Socrates) was the first to put together a book on the formation of reasoned argumentation when he wrote his Prior Analytics which sets out various forms of syllogistic reasoning. It contains discussion of premiss, term, syllogistic and more. He also wrote a book on sophistic argumentation (Sophistical Refutations) to explain improper forms of argumentation. In his book on scientific philosophical methodology, the Posterior Analytics, he writes in the first sentence that “ All teaching and learning that involves the use of reasoning proceeds from pre-existent knowledge.” (Tr. Tredennick) By this he means that we have to start with assumed facts or / and meanings of terms used, though he makes it clear that not all facts or truths are known to us as we form our reasoning. Aristotle’s point, however, is that if we can ground our premises in a strong factual way, we can put together by reasoning an argument that reveals more about things than are immediately apparent. In this way the reasoned conclusion is something we did not know before.
Weston begins Chapter 1 with short arguments to spell our some general rules. These are all informal guidelines:Rule 1. Resolve premises and conclusions.
(i) Let’s be clear about what we want to prove and (ii) that we use relevant premises.
We have to begin with some facts or seeming facts. We might start with the idea that
we find beans can be made to be very tasty so we should persuade everyone to eat beans. That is a motivator but if we want a well grounded motivator we might start
with the nutritional facts that beans have fiber, protein, and low fat content (health facts) and perhaps also add the kicker that protein from plants is much less expensive than protein from meat (an economical fact). Now you have a nutritional motivator, an economical motivator and a pleasurable motivator for recommending beans (perhaps certain kinds in certain form, e.g. garbonzo’s in hummus) to friends and family.
These are reasons that can be made into premises be used to reach a conclusion. In fact, you already reached the conclusion for yourself, so now your concern is to share your own conclusion with others through an argument.
You have clearly resolved or distinguished premises and conclusion. The premises are the motivators that made you commit to the conclusion.
Rule 2. Unfold your ideas in a natural order.
Setting out your reasoning in “a natural order” is a rhetorical consideration. You do not want to be abrasive and to say, “Only an idiot or fool would disregard beans as a valuable nutritional source.” This gets you no where and sets up a situation for disagreement and name calling. Also, provide signposts and guides to your listeners. A conversational tone that indicates normal human concern for the welfare of those with whom we are in dialogue is much more effective.
“Hey, I learned something new today. I already enjoy black beans in tacos and also hummus made from garbonzos. But I found out that they are also very healthy for me! They have protein and fiber, are low fat and cholesterol as well, while red meats have no fiber, may be high in fat and have colesterol. They can be used in many dishes, not just for tacos and in hummus, my favorites. And to top it off, they are inexpensive! So for all these reasons I am recommending beans to all my friends.”
Weston recommends rearranging arguments several times to figure out “the most natural order.” In other words, the most persuasive order. For this you also need to take into account your audience.
Rule 3. Start from reliable premises.
To stick to the beans, we had very reliable premises that could be read on the sides of cans of black beans or garbonzos (canned or dried), namely, the nutritional facts in a form required by US governmental law. That is pretty reliable.
“Michels says he is going to turn the capital Madison upside down and tear it up so he can rebuild everything. He will do that because he is a contractor and builder who will make money for his company from the rebuilding. He is also going to lower taxes by cutting funding for schools. So no one should vote for Michels.”
This may well be a political and emotional motivator but it does not provide reliable premises and grounds. First, the metaphor of turning something upside down and tearing it up (down and up!) needs explanation since it is not literally the case. One has to ask Michels just what he means and not take it as simply a proper statement of his intentions. Certainly he means he will, to use another metaphor, turn a critical eye on some aspects of current governmental policies and decide whether to oppose or change some. Further, it is pure political rhetoric to take it literally and then associate it with his construction company. Finally, facts are needed to determine whether school funding needs revision.
Rule 4. Be concrete and concise.
What I set out just above is only concrete and concise in the case of beans and altogether the opposite in the case of the opposition to Michels. It may be concise to get to the point and say “Michels is out for himself and cutting funding for schools. So no one should vote for Michels.” But for reasoning we need concrete facts and reasons. Michels can provide the concrete for rebuilding, it is hard to chip away at that foundational point. (Apologies!)
As Weston indicates, some short phrases can capture in a truly powerful way the reality of a long argument, as in “Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.” (Still, early to bed (a good night’s sleep) and rising after sufficient sleep is clearly healthy, but those alone do not yield wealth and wisdom.)
Rule 5. Build on substance, not overtone.
Much of what I have written above concerns substance and tone.
For anti-Gov. Tony Evers, see https://empowerwisconsin.org/re-election-slogan-suggestions-for-tony/
Pro-Evers: “Being Governor of Wisconsin has been my great honor. I’m a lifelong Wisconsinite. I root for the Badgers, and the Brewers, and the Packers.” (Extract from tonyevers.com.)
Now for some pro-Evers substance: “Whether that’s through the middle-class tax cut I signed, the thousands of small businesses we’ve helped grow, or work we’ve done to improve the quality of our public schools, Wisconsin is better and stronger today.”
From the anti-Gov. Tony Evers site, “Much of Wisconsin shouted back, “We’re in … deep (cow pies) if tax-and-spend Tony is re-elected.” “As campaigns slogans go, ‘Wisconsin, I’m in” ranks right up there with the Democrats’ 1852 rally cry for Franklin Pierce, “We Polked You in ’44, We Shall Pierce You in ’52.” Evers’ ‘I’m in’ declaration certainly is not as awful as the unfortunate slogan of Democrat and anti-prohibition candidate Al Smith, who in 1928 promised he could make America’s “Wet Dreams Come True,” but it’s lamer than Tony’s insufferable “folks” schtick.”
Rule 6. Use consistent terms.
Weston cites the use of the Beatitudes of Jesus as an example of the use of repetitive and clear formulae. The form is: X is the case so for them Y will be true, repeated.
“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn: for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the earth. Matthew 5:3-5)”
The consistent use of terms and the formula in which they are placed make it clear that they are all related and not wholly separate.
Westin’s Chapter II concerns the various uses of examples. The use of examples can be very powerful and effective in reasoning. So are counter-examples which can undermine what seems to be a good argument. The first discussion cites precise information on early female marriage from different cultures and times in support of the factual claim that “women in earlier times were married very young.”
Rule 7: Use more than one example.
Simply put, the power of example is significantly enhanced by the use of several instances of similar examples, as in the case of different particular forms of power generation to indicate that that renewables are widely used. This is a generalization but not a hasty one. It is not uncommon for us to come up with one example and then in haste to generalize it. She said, “‘But he lied to me!’ And her friend answered, ‘Well, what do you expect. He’s a sales man!’” Hence, no sales man or woman can ever be trusted (which is certainly not true). Still, multiple examples of lying experiences with used car sales men / women can reasonably be said to support the need to be cautious in purchasing a used car. The multiplication of examples suitably similar has some value.
Rule 8: Use representative examples.
When using examples it is important that they fit the case for which they argue.
“I once bought a nice family car not long after a hurricane struck southeastern states with widespread flooding. I was assured that this car had not been flooded, only to find out six months later that it needed extensive engine repairs due to flooding. I’ll never trust a used car again.” This is not at all representative of all sales of used cars. Today we can order history records of cars that reveal the truth concerning accidents of all sorts. Many used cars come with inspection records and warrantees when purchased through a reputable dealer. Even the advice of family and friends on buying a used car does not constitute a significant sounding, but Consumer Reports which provides ratings of the values of used cars based on thousands of instances does tell us often sufficiently accurate information.
Rule 9: Background rates are often crucial.
After not firing a gun for over 30 years, my brother-in-law deemed me to be an expert marksman when I hit the center of the target 5 out of 7 shots. I ran the pool table one Friday night with friends and they proclaimed me a master. The reality, however, is that I was lucky each time. When I tried to repeat these, my results were miserable.
Weston mentions the fear of crime, something that concerns travelers when in a different country. But the actual violent crime rates in US cities are universally higher than in European cities, so the actual rates are relevant to safety and our actions. I have traveled a great deal in European cities and the only crime I have (nearly) fallen victim to is pickpocketing in Istanbul. Crossing a street, several older women were also crossing and bumped into me as I was waiting for a car to pass. I reached into my front pocket where I had my wallet and found another hand there already. What is the background rate that causes some cities to put up signs saying, Beware of Pickpockets?
Rule 10: Statistics need a critical eye.
And beware of the illicit use of statistics. What is the graduation rate of Marquette? What is relevant, overall graduation rate, graduation rate in your college, graduation rate in your major field, graduation rate of your friends?
Rule 11: Reckon with counterexamples.
In reasoning by use of examples perhaps the most powerful refutation of an argumentative rational account can be with a counterexample.
After President Trump formally withdrew the US from the Paris Climate Agreement, that left the Europeans to be the leaders in worldwide efforts to keep the world climate to rise no more than 1.5 degrees. This is proof of the absolute commitment the EU to the use of renewable sources of energy into the future irrespective of what the US does. Counterexample: With the closing of pipelines for gas to Europe from Russia, European nations are scrambling to find new sources of gas and to start up old coal highly polluting generating plants in Germany and elsewhere, while the French are beginning to ramp up older nuclear energy plants.
Chapter III: Arguments by Analogy (A is to B, as C is to D)
Rule 12: Analogies require relevantly similar examples
“In the Bears game, the defensive tackle fought like a mother bear.”
The powerful attack of the defensive tackle was like that of a single minded mother bear.
But, of course, the defensive tackle did not use claws and teeth on his opponent and his play stopped when the referee blew his whistle.
Most analogies have very limited similarities for comparisons.
Weston’s account of the analogy of discovering America by Columbus and of the discovery of Italy by Nordwell is not very sympathetic. In theory it works but the contexts are very different. Nevertheless, it is thought provoking in many ways.
Chapter IV: Arguments from Authority
This form of reasoning frequently used (or misused).
What or who counts as an authority? And how absolute a principle is authority?
Hitler was certainly an authority of political and military power, as was Stalin. They ruled as authoritarians because of their power.
But Dr Anthony Fauci was not an authority on COVID because of political and military power. Rather, he has a history of scientific research publications critically reviewed by peers in the field of medical care. So given how smart he has proven to be in his field of research, then it only follows that he must also be smart in political matters. No, he has no authority as a political advisor. But President Biden, given his political skills and success in winning office and governing during the time of the pandemic, is himself a good advisor regarding the various vaccines. No. Rather, he makes political decisions based on information from trusted advisors and does not check things in Fauci’s lab.
In sum, authority has to be proper grounded to have relevant value.
Rule 13: Cite your sources
When using arguments from authority, the use of proper sources is crucial and the sources that ground your reasoned argument must be cited. Hearsay or so-called “common sense” has not substantive reliability.
Rule 14: Seek informed sources
Obviously we do not hold entertainment stars to be informed sources based on vocal range or ability to act and portray characters.
Informed sources are those that have been vetted and their authority recognized in the relevant field. Does this mean that all medical journals can be counted on to have perfectly true and correct data and absolutely sound conclusions? No. Science is dynamic and human are imperfect. But that is why we have peer review processes whereby articles on important discoveries are checked and, in the case of experiments, checked by other experts duplicating the research discovery separately. Is this fool proof, and perfectly so? It is reliable but not infallible, since other research may provide a different angle of investigation that reveals more. For much of what we know, we rely on testimony and the value of testimony relies on common human recognition by groups of experts. Still, science and much of our knowledge is dynamic and subject to revision.
Rule 15: Seek impartial sources.
This is precisely what is done in the scientific and academic world. When asked to judge the value of an application for research funding, it is required as a rule that the evaluator swear that they will provide impartial evaluations to the highest extent possible. Does this mean they have no bias in this? Perfect protection from bias requires complex vigilance regarding what we call “implicit bias,” a form of cultural judgement not infrequently unnoticed by the evaluator.
Thus, not only should we be seeing sources that are impartial, we must also take care not to allow common cultural prejudices and personal biases enter into decisions regarding sources.
Rule 16: Cross-check sources.
One even famously reliable source is not enough to guarantee the value of the source. Even the famed Encyclopedia Brittanica can contain mistakes or misunderstandings discovered by scholars and scientists in later years. While we would all like to think that all knowledge by definition must be true and forever so, isn’t there a way for knowledge to be false? How does that work, when by definition knowledge can only be true?
Rule 17: Build your Internet savvy
Though you have surely been warned to stay away from Wikipedia, Weston’s remarks on its relative reliability just serve to uphold the reality of the dynamic nature of human knowing. Still, Caveat emptor: Let the buyer beware!
Chapter V: Arguments about Causes
Yesterday a representative of Wisconsin Energies came to my home to update our gas meter with a new one. On a local residents discussion board online, several people remarked that their gas bills had gone up after the installation of the new meter. No one claimed to have found gas bills to go down. Since several different people noted this phenomenon, it must be either the old meter was faulty and was not measuring properly or Wisconsin Energies is using new meters set up and made to report more usage.
The reasoning of the second option is called Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, literally “After this, therefore because of this.”
But what has been happening with energy supplies in our world recently? Around the world the prices of natural gas, automotive gas, and oil have been rising because of demand and supply restraints.
How can we determine this? By comparing the price of units of gas in the months before the installation of the new meter with the prices after the installation of the new meter. For more certainty, it would be good also to check the usage of units of gas before and after. All these are available records that can reveal an answer.
Rule 18: Causal arguments start with correlations.
Causation can be very difficult to prove. Still, what alerts us to the possibility that A may be the cause of B is the correlative association of A and B. I love the taste of pepper on salad but it seems that every time I shake pepper on my salad, I sneeze. Clearly I must be allergic to pepper even though I love the taste. Is this coincidental? It seems not since it is so frequent and regular that I sneeze then seemingly always after shaking on the pepper while I otherwise seldom sneeze. There is a clear correlation. But could there be another factor involved? Maybe I should ask my wife to sprinkle the pepper on the salad in the kitchen before I bring it to the dining table. This is testable. If I do not sneeze while eating the peppered salad, then there has to be another factor involved.
Rule 19: Correlations may have alternate explanations.
During the COVID pandemic cases of influenza and also colds dropped dramatically. Obviously this is because, after the first months, people began to wear masks. What alternate explanation could there be?
During the pandemic, people remained much more isolated from groups than before when there were more cases of influenza and colds. Since influenza and colds are largely transmitted by infected surfaces or by air, perhaps isolation from groups of infected individuals is the reason fewer people became ill with influenza or colds.
Rule 20: Work toward the most likely explanation.
Which is the most likely [causal] explanation?
During the pandemic people were more isolated and many were unable for various reasons (not the least the transmissibility of COVID) to visit physicians for routine examinations for various physical concerns. After the restrictions were somewhat lifted and people were able to go for checkup and routine examinations, more cases of heart disease and breast cancer were found. The correlation is there. Do we then conclude that human isolation is a major cause of heart disease and breast cancer? How can statistics help us here? Does it make any difference if we speak of mental illnesses rather than heart disease or breast cancer?
Rule 21: Expect complexity.
On the one hand, the complexity on the issues of increased heart disease or breast cancer are not so difficult to deal with. Statistics can help determine the impact of time delays on the development of heart disease or breast cancer.
But in the case of mental health, the original mental illness may be exacerbated by the isolation and the delay of regularly scheduled treatment. Or even the stress of the times with fear of COVID and its consequences may be a factor. This is complexity that makes it very difficult to determine causality even when there are strong correlations.
On the other hand, the case of mental illness introduces factors of substantial complexity requiring profound scientific study.
Chapter VI: Deductive Arguments
A valid argument is one that has proper syllogistic form, such as Modus ponens or Modus tollens. But the truth of the conclusion of the valid argument depends on the truth of the premises. A sound argument is one that has both syllogistic form AND true premises such that the conclusion must be true. Both sorts are deductive arguments that proceed to reveal what is implicit in the premises. Non-deductive arguments such as intuitive arguments based on beliefs or opinions. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy David Lewis is quoted as writing,
“Our ‘intuitions’ are simply opinions; our philosophical theories are the same. Some are commonsensical, some are sophisticated; some are particular, some general; some are more firmly held, some less. But they are all opinions.” (SEP https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuition/#IntuBeli)
Intuitive arguments are set out on the basis of feelings, beliefs and the like and do not have a necessarily firm foundation in true premises and so also do not have fully reliable and grounded conclusions. On the one hand, much of our real world thinking is based on intuitions, feelings and beliefs and lack the strength of deductive arguments. On the other hand, finding absolutely certain and true premises is a difficult task but without them an argument cannot be sound and necessarily true. The weak parts are the starting points, the premises.
Rule 22: Modus ponens.
Modus ponens is a positive form of reasoning.
If p is the case, then q is the case. This is a premise the truth of which has to be
separately verified or known as true. Weston’s example is: If drivers on cell phones have more accidents, the drivers should be prohibited from using them. This is a real world statement agreed upon by many State legislators and acted upon by laws restricting the use of handheld phones while driving. (Psychological studies of distraction have also shown that drivers can lose their attention to the road even with phone calls through car systems. Should the prohibition be extended such that no phones at all can be used by drivers?)
P is the case. Weston: Drivers on cell phones do have more accidents.
Therefore q. Weston: Therefore, drivers should be prohibited from using cell phones.
As Weston notes, the premises have to be explained and defended. And that is precisely what State legislators and governors have done. The consequence is a restriction of the freedom of action by automobile drivers. The same is the case with regard to the necessary use of seatbelts, another restriction of the freedom of action by automobile drivers.
Rule 23: Modus tollens.
Modus tollens is a negative from of reasoning that begins the same way:
If p is the case, then q is the case. Again, this is a premise the truth of which has to be
separately verified or known as true.
Let’s use the same sort of example but regarding “hands free” phone use by drivers.
If drivers engaged in phone calls have more accidents, drivers should be prohibited from engaging in phone calls.
This is a great restriction and there are many reasons why we might want to oppose it even if there are some indications of increased accidents. What are some reasons?
Not-q: The evidence is not strong that drivers engaged in phone calls have more accidents.
Therefore, not-p. The conclusion then is: Drivers should not be prohibited from engaging in phone calls.
This has real world implications. But what are the reasons why we might want to refuse the conclusion?
(Weston’s example of Holmes is excellent.)
Rule 24: Hypothetical syllogism.
This, like Modus ponens and Modus tollens, is a valid argument of a deductive sort and, like those, the truth of the conclusion is based on the truth of the premises. This time the argument involves three terms, p, q and r.
Two claims are being made. We know If q then r. Experience caring for a dependent animal contributes to a habit of caring that applies to the care of children.
Thus: (q) If you learn to attend to the needs of a dependent creature, then (r) you learn to be a better parent. (Definition of parent: one of cares for children)
This is key to the reasoning and has to be established by separate grounding.
Now we have:
If p, then q. If you learn to care for a pet, they you learn to attend to (scil. care for) the needs of a dependent creature.
If q, then r: If you learn to attend to the needs of a dependent creature, then you learn to be a better parent.
Therefore, if p, then r. Therefore, if you learn to care for a pet, then you learn to be a better parent.
Does this conclusion necessarily apply in all cases of human behavior? It depends on the strength of the assumptions asserted in the premises.
Rule 25: Disjunctive syllogism: Another valid deductive form, now using a negation.
This has the form:
p or q
Not-p
Therefore q.
Weston is right to call attention to the use of the English word “or” and equivocations (same word, different meaning) concerning the inclusive and exclusive use of the word.
In a dialogue of Plato called Meno, this plays a very important part in ethical thinking.
Socrates is discussing virtue with Meno who professes to be a teacher of virtue. To paraphrase the discussion, Socrates ask Meno whether virtue comes about by teaching or practice or recollection (from another life) or something else. In conversation they eliminate teaching and recollection and conclude that virue comes about in another way, namely, by divine inspiration. And divine inspiration is not in our control but in the control of the gods. Hence, there is nothing we can learn from a teacher and there is no effort on our part that can lead to virtue. We must just wait and hope that the gods zap us with inspiration (breath) to make us virtuous. All this was discussed using the exclusive sense of “or”. Also, the most important part was left out of discussion, practice.
Later after Arisotle left the Academy following the death of Plato, he created his own doctrine of moral virtue based not on the disjunctive use of “or” but on the conjunctive or inclusive sensed of “or”. To be morally virtuous, he argues, we need (i) something by nature, and (ii) a teacher, and (iii) to practice what we are taught so as to make it habitual, and (iii) the result is something “divine” (admirable), namely, a morally virtuous human being. We also use the term “gifted” regarding the talents of children, but we do not mean that they do not have to develop their inborn talents to become excellent (another translation of the Greek arete, virtue). They need something by nature, the ability to develop a talent, skill or disposition. (Exception: Children severely ill or born with severe deficiencies such that they cannot learn are unable to develop excellence.) They also need a teacher. And they need to practice what they are taught. And this results in a morally virtuous person. Aristotle saw in the discussion in Plato’s Meno that the reasoning was disjunctive or exclusive but that the development of a moral person requires conjunction or inclusion of all those elements.
Rule 26: Dilemma. This is another valid deductive form.
What does it mean to say that we are on the horns of a dilemma? Regardless of whether we choose A or B, we are going to be impaled by a beast’s horn. That is, both options lead to unhappy or undesirable consequences.
p or q. I submit a journal entry for today or I do not submit a journal entry today.
If p, then r. If I submit a journal entry for today, I will get a grade of zero since I did not do the preparatory reading and I will be seen as trying to fake it (deceptive).
If q, then s. If I don’t do a journal entry, I will get zero on the assignment and I will be seen as neglecting my work.
Therefore, r or s. I am going to be seen as deceptive or neglectful.
As Weston would have it, “Either way I will be unhappy (or viewed negatively).”
Rule: 27 Reduction ad absurdum. This is a form of indirect proof involving the exclusion of of a premise as absurd or impossible to accept.
We want to prove p. We do so by proving that the negation of p (not-p) cannot be acceptable.
The proof of not-p involves q which happens to be wholly unacceptable.
p: The universe came to be from something (either an agent or some stuff).
not p: The universe did not come to be from something.
q: All things, including the entire universe, came into existence from no cause (neither an agent nor any kind of stuff.
q is absurd. Things do not of themselves come into being without any cause whatsoever.
p: The universe came to be from something (either an agent or some stuff).
Rule 28: Deductive arguments in multiple steps. As noted by Weston, this involves using forms of Rules 22-27 as part of a single long argument in sequence. Let’s review Weston’s breakdown.
Putting Holmes’s deduction into explicit premises, we might have:
- Watson has a little reddish mold on his boots.
- If Watson has a little reddish mold on his boots, then he
has been to the Wigmore Street Post Office this morning
(because there and only there is reddish dirt of that sort
thrown up, and in a way difficult to avoid stepping in). - If Watson has been to the Wigmore Street Post Office this
morning, he either mailed a letter, bought stamps or cards, or
sent a wire. - If Watson had mailed a letter, he would have written the
letter this morning. - Watson wrote no letter this morning.
- If Watson had bought stamps or cards, he would not already
have a drawer full of stamps and cards. - Watson already has a drawer full of stamps and cards.
- Therefore, Watson sent a wire at the Wigmore Street Post
Office this morning.
We now need to break the argument down into a series of valid
arguments in the simple forms presented in Rules 22–27. We might
start with a modus ponens:
- If Watson has a little reddish mold on his boots, then he
has been to the Wigmore Street Post Office this morning. - Watson has a little reddish mold on his boots.
I. Therefore, Watson has been to Wigmore Street Post Office
this morning.
(I will use I, II, etc. to stand for the conclusions of simple arguments,
which then can be used as premises to draw further conclusions.)
Another modus ponens follows:
- If Watson has been to the Wigmore Street Post Office this
morning, he either mailed a letter, bought stamps or cards, or
sent a wire.
I. Watson has been to Wigmore Street Post Office this morning.
II. Therefore, Watson either mailed a letter, bought stamps
or cards, or sent a wire.
Two of these three possibilities now can be ruled out, both by
modus tollens:
- If Watson had gone to the post office to mail a letter, he
would have written the letter this morning. - Watson wrote no letter this morning.
III. Therefore, Watson did not go to the post office to mail a
letter.
and
- If Watson had gone to the post office to buy stamps or
cards, he would not already have a drawer full of stamps and
cards. - Watson already has a drawer full of stamps and cards.
IV. Therefore, Watson did not go to the post office to buy
stamps or cards.
Finally we can put it all together:
II. Watson either mailed a letter, bought stamps or cards, or
sent a wire at the Wigmore Street Post Office this morning.
III. Watson did not mail a letter.
IV. Watson did not buy stamps or cards.
- Therefore, Watson sent a wire at the Wigmore Street Post
Office this morning.
This last inference is an extended disjunctive syllogism: “Eliminate
all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.” Chapter VII: Extended Arguments. Weston here and in Chapter VIII moves beyond argument analysis and provides practical advice on forming arguments arguments. This is easily brought together with How To Do Philosophy Essays.
Rule 29: Explore the issue.
Well, yeah, you have an idea but you need to do some research and not just start arguing about your own unreflective opinion. Consult sources. Start with an idea that interests you and then head into authoritative sources such as encyclopedias and the like. Or even better: Talk to the helpful folks at the Raynor Library Information Desk about how to get going.
Rule 30: Spell out basic ideas as arguments.
Take some time to set out various attempts to for arguments (provided your exploration or research has indicated a possibly fruitful direction of thought).
Rule 31: Defend basic premises with arguments of their own.
This is an obvious point but it functions well as a reminder that you have to defend the premises with reasons and facts of some sort.
Rule 32: Reckon with objections. That is, consider opposing views, some of which may include counter-examples that may crush your plans!
Aside: Sometimes people speak of the period of the Middle Ages (ca. 400 CE to 1500 CE – that is a large middle!) as the Dark Ages. There is something to that, especially in the depressed economies of Europe up to the 12th Century. At that time social and economic factors became more positive and Cathedral schools emerged and led to the establishment of universities in the 13th century. In the 12th Century Europeans (who used Latin as the international language of learning and science) saw in Spain how very advanced Muslim societies were in all the sciences and in philosophy as well. In many places in the peninsula schools of translation arose, the most prominent of them at Toledo where European religious orders and schools sent developing schools to study. Groups of translators began to provide Latin versions of highly sophisticated philosophical and scientific texts developed in the economically and educationally advances lands of Islam. Many translations where done in Toledo by groups of Muslims, Jews and Christians collaborating. Other translations were done in Sicily under the patronage of Emperor Frederick II. In the 13th century Christian thinkers (theologians, scholars, and even philosophers) worked in new universities and made great use of texts translated from Arabic and Greek. For the texts of Aristotle, it was the commentaries by Muslim thinkers that taught the Latins how to read Aristotle.
It is in the context that new forms of sophisticated reasoning developed. This came to be typical:
The Master would select a topic for study and present his views on it.
For example, (1) God is not the only actor in the world. Humans have freedom and moral responsibility.
Then the class would be divided into those assigned to support the thesis and those assigned to oppose it.
(2) Those opposed (Objectors) would give reasons to reject the thesis and to assert: God is all powerful and the Creator of all power.
(3) The other group taking the other side would provide reasons why the Master’s view makes sense. Often these would be arguments by analogy or arguments by authority (Scripture, religious tradition) that may be on the right track but not fully justified.
(4) The Master would then explain his position and the reasons for it.
(5) Then the Master would respond one by one to each and every objection in detail.
This was probably the most rigorous period of philosophical and scientific study in form, even if much empirical information was unavailable.
More: Also, in Advent and at Easter, some Masters would hold sessions called Quodlibetal Quaestiones. Quodlibet means “Whatever” and would stand before the assembled group Masters and students taking any questions whatsoever and responding on the spot with reasoned argument (without any advanced preparation)!
Rule 33: Explore alternatives
This is simply to remember to open your mind to other considerations, perhaps some which will be contrary to your initial ideas. This is part of your research and your reflective and imaginative thinking.
Chapter VII Argumentative Essays. This a reminder about how to construct essays with arguments. A previous class I briefly went over a handout on how to do philosophical argumentative essays. I attach that handout at the end of this way because it has important reminders. As for Weston’s chapters, it provides simular reminders.
Rule 34: Jump right in. That is, stay on track and do not bother with a wordy, breezy vacuous rhetorical starting point.
Rule 35: Urge a definite claim or proposal. That is, make a clear statement of your view that you will argue for.
Rule 36: Your argument is your outline. Keep in mind that what is important is at the center, the reasoned arguments you craft.
Rule 37: Detail objections and meet them. In preparing an essay, think about what kind of objections could be raised against your view. Provide a few and respond to each of them defending your view. This makes the argument of your paper even more powerful.
Rule 38: Seek feedback and use it. Here at Marquette feedback on all the parts of your draft essay is available from the kind and helpful students and faculty at The Writing Center. (Important: They will even help with proofreading and typos, FOR FREE!) But even perhaps equally valuable is sharing your paper with a roommate or friend who will read your paper and provide you with an invaluable second set of eyes and another mind for the sake of form and content.
Rule 39: Modesty, please. Well, of course. “I have done my best and I think I have sufficiently grounded and explained my reasoning in this paper” is better than “This is perfection and you are an ignorant idiot if you do not agree.”
More: a draft outline
- Introduction (Walking in the door)
1.1. general account of area and importance of the topic
1.2. more specific focus on the particular topic and its issues
1.3. how I will proceed in this paper and where I am headed OR what are the key questions that have to be answered and how I will proceed in this paper to answer each one in its proper order: I will do in the body 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 which will contribute valuable to my conclusion in 2.4. - Body
2.1 Arguing for one part then prompts me to proceed to
2.2 Arguing for the second part. Now that I have established key parts and foundations for my reasoning, I proceed toward now
2.3 Arguing for the main thesis
2.4 Concluding reasoning of the Body.
3.Conclusion (Walking out the door backwards)
3.1 I did what I said I would do in 1.3.
3.2. Specifically I have advanced the understanding of the issue indicated at 1.2
3.3. This impacts our larger understanding of what I mentioned in 1.1.