Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share 365DaysOfPhilosophy 18 — Looking At Arguments Further
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
365DaysOfPhilosophy 18 — Looking At Arguments Further
When Looking At Arguments:
1) Are the reasons true?
2) Does the conclusion/s follow from those reasons — is the inference good?
If: 1 and 2 = cogent / sound. Which means we can be convinced by it.
NB: arguments are not true or false — they are only sound or unsound [as ‘un-cogent’ isn’t a word!]
Therefore:
Weak validity — Slightly likely. Inferences are unacceptable, but at least the reasons are relevant to the conclusion. In a weak argument, even if the reasons were true, the conclusion would only be slightly more likely as a result. ‘The rooster crowed yesterday, it rained yesterday, therefore it will rain today because the rooster crowed today’. [Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!]
Moderate validity — Fairly likely. If the reasons are true, then it is fairly likely (although not inevitable) that the conclusion will be true too. Some support, but not strong support. ‘Australia did well at the last Olympics, therefore they’ll do well at the next Olympics’.
Strong validity — very likely. Where the reasons are almost conclusive. ‘The price of wool is falling, while the demand for wool is rising — therefore wool prices will start to increase’.
Deductively valid — must necessarily follow. Where there’s no question as to the result — ‘He has often lied to me, therefore he is not a completely honest person.’
View all episodes
When Looking At Arguments:
1) Are the reasons true?
2) Does the conclusion/s follow from those reasons — is the inference good?
If: 1 and 2 = cogent / sound. Which means we can be convinced by it.
NB: arguments are not true or false — they are only sound or unsound [as ‘un-cogent’ isn’t a word!]
Therefore:
Weak validity — Slightly likely. Inferences are unacceptable, but at least the reasons are relevant to the conclusion. In a weak argument, even if the reasons were true, the conclusion would only be slightly more likely as a result. ‘The rooster crowed yesterday, it rained yesterday, therefore it will rain today because the rooster crowed today’. [Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!]
Moderate validity — Fairly likely. If the reasons are true, then it is fairly likely (although not inevitable) that the conclusion will be true too. Some support, but not strong support. ‘Australia did well at the last Olympics, therefore they’ll do well at the next Olympics’.
Strong validity — very likely. Where the reasons are almost conclusive. ‘The price of wool is falling, while the demand for wool is rising — therefore wool prices will start to increase’.
Deductively valid — must necessarily follow. Where there’s no question as to the result — ‘He has often lied to me, therefore he is not a completely honest person.’