Identifying, Evaluating, and Constructing Arguments: Unveiling the Deceptive Nature of Obvious Facts

1. Identifying, evaluating and constructing arguments ‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.’ (There is a theme here!!) Paul Reynolds Reader in Sociology and Social Philosophy MRes Lead, Social Sciences edgehill.ac.uk

2. Outline of the session • What is an argument? What are the components of an argument • Two forms of argument – inferential and deductive • The argument agenda Readings http://www.iep.utm.edu/argument/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/ ‘I ought to know by this time that when a fact appears to be opposed to a long train of deductions it invariably proves to be capable of bearing some other interpretation.’ edgehill.ac.uk

3. What is an Argument • An argument is a reasoned inference from one set of claims – the premises – to another claim – the conclusion. • http://www.langleyacademy.org/documents/6thform/2017-18/InductionWeekWork/Philosophy%201.pdf • Components of an Argument • invariably propositional (making a case) • premises & suppositions • inference & deduction • conjectures/refutations, claims/rebuttals • Conclusions You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear edgehill.ac.uk

4. Argument by deduction • The soundness of the premises ensures the validity of the conclusions • It involves a narrowing of focus from possible to significant relations, causalities and determinations • Problems? False premises will invalidate conclusions & correct premises can still produce invalid conclusions • Scientific model Theory Proposition/Hypothesis Observation Confirmation ‘How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,however improbable, must be the truth?’ edgehill.ac.uk

5. Argument by inference • Conclusions reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning • Inductive Logic – brings in new evidence and premises to existing arguments • A continual process of testing • Inference and the centrality of reasoning • Problems? False reasoning or wrong premises Observation Pattern Inference Theory It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts edgehill.ac.uk

6. The Argument Agenda • Argument is at the centre of research. • All research, from question to conclusion (provisional) is structured in terms of argument • You never begin with the assumption of an unassailable premise, an intuitive rather than reasonable process and a mapping of your logic • The argument agenda • What are your premises? • Can you describe your reasoning? • Can you identify processes of inference and deduction? • Can you trace your reasoning from premise to where the conclusion should be? • Data! Data! Data!” he cried impatiently. “I can’t make bricks without clay. edgehill.ac.uk

7. ‘I cannot live without brain-work. What else is there to live for?’ ‘Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?’ ‘It is cocaine,’ he said, ‘a seven-per-cent solution. Would you like to try it?’ edgehill.ac.uk