Despite popular opinion, screaming at one another is not arguing. Well, at least it’s not what arguing should be. All of the talking heads and political pundits you see on the television may claim to be ‘engaging in a civilised discourse’, but they’re not. Arguing is not meant to be a shouting match where the louder the aggressor is, the more likely he or she will achieve victory.
You might think the time you and your spouse started screaming at each other — because the dishes had gone unwashed for several days — was an ‘argument’. In truth, it was not. That may seem rather strange, but if you ever want clarification on the matter, all you really have to do is talk to a philosopher. Arguing, after all, is what philosophy is all about.
But let’s not miss the point. Philosophers do not just argue. They argue in the right way, for the right reasons, with plausible premises that must necessarily support some sort of conclusion. When you get right down to it, that’s really what philosophy is; a process of a prioriargumentation that seeks to come to some new conclusion.
So today we are going to go over just a few rules that logical argumentation should follow. Today, we are going to put some philosophy to work. Whether you want to be a full-fledged lover of wisdom, or simply want to maintain your status as a free-thinking, independent person, you really ought to know how to argue like a philosopher.
Rule 1: Statements have truth value
The first thing we ought to know, seeing as we are on our way to arguing like philosophers, is that arguments are different from statements.
What is a statement? Very simply, a statement is any sentence that has a truth value. A statement is either true or false.
An example: the taxi cab outside my window is yellow. If the taxi cab outside the window is, in fact, yellow, then the statement is true. However, the taxi could just as easily have been green, blue or pink with white polka dots. This may seem rather straightforward; and in a fair world, it would be.
The problem is that, while statements most assuredly are true or false, we often have a hard time knowing which is the case. The following sentences are certainly statements. However, we may not know whether they are true or false.
- Achilles was the bravest warrior in all of Greece.
- Socrates was the wisest man in all of Athens.
- The Sophists are a bunch of greedy, no-good scoundrels.
While we might be simply tempted to label these statements as either true or false, we certainly need more support before we can say with any certainty.
This brings us to…
Rule 2: Arguments are constructed from statements
A syllogism is an argument constructed from two or more previously known statements, which lead us naturally, and necessarily, to a third previously unknown statement.
Aristotle is often given credit for discovering the syllogism and creating formalised logic in the process. This was nothing short of revolutionary, especially considering that the syllogism is still the basis of our formalised logic almost 2,500 years later.
In a syllogism, there are two previously known statements, which are known as premises. Ideally, the premises should logically follow and support a third, previously unknown statement; the conclusion.
- Premise 1: All men are mortal.
- Premise 2: Socrates is a man.
- Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
Put very simply…
An argument is a series of statements, some of which (known as premises) are offered in support of a third statement (the conclusion).
A statement is a sentence that has truth value; it is either true or false.
You might be tempted to call it quits right here. After all, you now know about statements, arguments and the all-important syllogism. You are on your way to becoming a functioning philosopher as well as a more informed citizen of the world.
But there are still a few more rules we have to get to. They are, in my opinion, essential to any person who doesn’t want to be swayed by other, nefarious individuals. Our next rule is…
Rule 3: Premises must be plausible
It is rather obvious that some arguments are better than others. But what makes one argument better than the other? The first thing we need to identify is the plausibility or implausibility of the premises.
We may not always know whether premises are true or false. Therefore, we are forced to consider instead if the premises are plausible. In a philosophical context, plausibility just means that the statement is not only possible, but that it is also likely or probable. If we wanted to continue to use Socrates as an example, we might say:
- Premise 1: Socrates accepts his own ignorance and believes he knows very little (true).
- Premise 2: True wisdom is accepting limitations and pursuing knowledge (plausibly true).
- Conclusion: Socrates is the wisest man in Athens.
Having plausible premises is essential for crafting a good argument. Creating an argument with premises that are either false or implausible is tantamount to lying. Lying does not guarantee truth. And truth, after all, is what we are looking for.
Plausibility is not always easy to detect. When rolling a six sided die, it seems plausible that I will not roll a six. After all, it is much more likely that I will not roll a six than I will roll a six.
However, when considering arguments of a philosophical nature, such as metaphysical reality or the existence of a human soul, we often enter murky realms of uncertainty. And while we very rarely can say for certain whether a premise is true or false, we must always consider whether it is plausible or implausible.
After all, premises are simply reasons that we present in order to convince you of our conclusion. Without solid premises, our conclusion need not be accepted.
This leads us to our final rule for today. If you read nothing else, read this…
Rule 4: Always identify bad arguments
Whether by intention or by ignorance, people will inevitably present you with a series of bad arguments. It is your job, as a philosopher and independent thinker, to spot these bad arguments and boldly declare, ‘Wait just one minute there, Jack.’
We have talked about identifying bad arguments by spotting premises that are implausible. The other thing we must look for are premises that do not logically follow. That is to say, something in the argument just does not seem right.
For instance, you might be faced with an argument where two false or implausible premises actually lead to a true conclusion.
- Premise 1: Socrates was a bird (false).
- Premise 2: All birds are philosophers (false).
- Conclusion: Socrates was a philosopher (true!).
Additionally, you might have the opposite problem where two premises are true, yet they lead to a false conclusion.
- Premise 1: Socrates was Greek (true).
- Premise 2: Plato was Greek (true).
- Conclusion: Socrates was Plato (false!).
This type of argument is very dangerous. An unskilled individual might recognise that the premises are true and therefore conclude that the third premise must be true out of necessity. We must not think in such ways. It is our duty to always spot bad arguments.
Whether you want to be a truly great philosopher or simply don’t want to be taken advantage of, understanding good arguments — and the role they play in uncovering truth — is an essential skill. It is a skill that, unfortunately, is being traded in these days for fiery rhetoric and bold, shocking statements.
You, dear reader, are proof that the desire for wisdom, for deeper truth, is alive and well. When considering arguments, always ask yourself the following questions.
- Are there premises that support a conclusion?
- Are the premises true, or at least plausible?
- Do the premises support the conclusion, or are they disjointed?
- Does the argument, as a whole, logically follow?
If you find yourself answering ‘no’ to any of these questions, then you ought to take a second look at the conclusion you were presented with.
For The Escapologist
Editor’s Note: This article comes courtesy of Classical Wisdom Weekly. To read more from our friends in the US, go towww.classicalwisdom.com.