The Support Question & The Content Question

 

Support question

Content Question

·         Truth

·         Clarity

·         Reasonableness

Argument for Analysis

·         Principle of Charity

Epilogue and Final Thoughts

 

The Support Question & The Content Question

 

In the end, when analyzing an argument there are only two questions that one needs to ask and answer: The Support Question and Content Question.

 

  1. Support question: “If the premises were true would that make the conclusion more likely to be true?

 

Notice that if the answer to that question is “no” then there’s really not much sense in engaging the argument any further.  In answering that question with “No.” what you are really claiming is that even if everything that the advocate of the argument saying is true, it still would not support her conclusion. 

 

Consider this argument:

 

My political opponent is a liar, has cheated on his wife, hasn’t paid his income taxes and kicks dogs.  Therefore, I am the better candidate and you should vote for me.

 

What is the conclusion? 

 

That I am the better candidate and you should vote for me.

 

What are the premises?

 

That my political opponent is a liar, has cheated on his wife, hasn’t paid his income taxes and kicks dogs.

 

But you no doubt see that this is a terrible argument.  Even if everything the person is saying is true, it still would not support the claim that the person offering this argument is indeed the better candidate and one should vote for him.  For all we know he too is a liar, cheated on his spouse, hasn’t paid income taxes and kicks dogs AND CATS!.  Besides that and more relevant to the conclusion being advanced, he might be quite incompetent for the office.

 

Therefore, since in this case the answer to the Support Question is “no” we do not even have to get into whether the premises are true or not.  We do not even have to bother determining whether the challenger is in fact a liar and was unfaithful etc., since all of that would be irrelevant in any case.

 

Now, it is not enough to merely claim that the answer to the support question is “No.”  The critic of the argument would need to defend that claim and go on to say why, precisely, even if the premises were true, they would fail to make the conclusion more likely to be true. 

 

  1. Content Question: are the premises “good.”

 

Arguments have practical use: persuasion.  Therefore, premises need not only to be true but must be “good.”

 

I maintain that there are at least three qualities of a good premise:

 

1. true

2. clear (free from vagueness or ambiguousness)

3. reasonable (non-controversial, un-contentious, plausible.)

 

Truth:

 

Formal Logic is chiefly concerned with the support question.  But the task of the critical evaluation of an argument and therefore being a critical thinker requires more than a logical analysis alone.

 

To establish whether we should believe the conclusion of the argument we must do more than a simple logical analysis. We need to do something more then look at questions of support (whether the premises would support the conclusion if true).

 

We must also determine whether the premises are true or not.  (i.e. Do science, history, law, etc.)  But determining whether the premises are true or not is not part of logic.

 

Clarity:

 

Remember that the point of an argument is to persuade.  Therefore, it is not enough that the premises be true.  They must also be understood.  If premises are vague or ambiguous, we cannot know whether they are true or not and the argument will be unpersuasive.

 

Vague and Ambiguous Language

 

Consider the following statement:

 

We should tax the rich at 40% of their income.

 

Before you could tell me whether you think that statement is true or not, or whether you agree with it or not, you would first have to get greater clarity on what I mean by “rich.”  “Rich” is a vague term.  By impoverished nations’ standards, nearly anyone living in the United States is rich by comparison.  But is that what I am saying? That nearly everyone living in the United States should be taxed 40% of their income?  You don’t know because I am using a vague word. Therefore, since you do not know what I mean, you cannot determine whether I have said something true or not or whether this is a premise you are willing to accept.

 

Similarly, if I said “In vitro fertilization is unnatural.” the same difficulty occurs.  Here it is not because the term I am using is vague, but rather, because the term I am using is ambiguous, that is, it admits of multiple incompatible interpretations.  I might mean by this that in vitro fertilization is not found in nature and would not occur were in not for human technological innovations.  That is one meaning for the word “unnatural.”   On this interpretation the statement is true.  However, another meaning for the word “unnatural” is not permitted by the laws of nature or counter to the laws of nature (e.g. faster than light travel).  But on this interpretation the statement is false.  In vitro fertilization violates no laws of physics, but rather is perfectly in accord with them.  Thus you cannot tell whether I have said something true or false.  In fact, you do not really know what I have said due to my use of this ambiguous word.

 

Now, ambiguous and vague words are not always a problem. If I said, “Let’s meet at South Point Park for a picnic at twilight.” I have employed the vague term “twilight.”  There is no precise time when twilight begins or ends.  But this is not problematic in this case.  You know when to meet me.  Show up at noon, and you’re way too early.  Show up at 9:00 PM and you missed it.  Likewise, if I said, “I need to apply for a loan so I am going to a bank.” you know, from the context that I mean a financial institution and not a river bank, this despite the fact that “bank” is an ambiguous term.

 

So, if sometimes vague or ambiguous language is a problem with a premise, but other times not, what’s the difference?  Simple.  When the vagueness or the ambiguity prevents one from determining what the premise means and so whether or not it is true.  That’s a problem and weakness in the premise.  But again, it is not enough merely to claim that a premise is problematically vague or ambiguous.  The critical thinker must articulate precisely in what way the premise is problematic and why one is unable to determine the truth value of the premise.

 

Reasonableness:

 

Remember that the point of an argument is to persuade.  Therefore, it is not enough that the premises be true.  They must also be accepted by the person at whom the argument is directed.  If claims are controversial then it will diminish the ability of the argument to persuade.

 

While whether a sentence is clear or reasonable will depend in large part on who is listening, truth does not.

 

Consider the following argument:

       

        The Bible is the inspired word of God.

        The Bible says God exists

Therefore:

        God exists.

 

There is a problem with this argument, but it is not a problem of support.  I think the premises, if true, would provide excellent support for the conclusion.  In fact, I cannot imagine how the premises could be true but the conclusion false.  So the problem must be one of content.  But are the premises vague or ambiguous.  I don’t find them so, at least not in a very troublesome way.  Well, do I know the premises to be false?  Not really.  So what’s the problem?

 

The problem with this argument is that the first premise, whether true or not, is even more controversial than the conclusion.  Anyone who doubts the conclusion will surely not accept the first premise.  And anyone who accepts the first premise already accepts the conclusion.  Thus, there is no way this argument could persuade anyone.

 

Since the work of an argument is to persuade, one must make use of premises that are acceptable to the general public if one is to persuade the general public (you).  It is a weakness of an argument if it makes use of a premise which is controversial, whether it turns out to be true or not.

 

But again, it is not enough merely to claim that a premise is controversial. If you are asserting that a claim that the author is using is unreasonable and that reasonable people would reject this premise(s), you then must go on to say who the reasonable people are/ or what rational grounds they could/ would give for rejecting the author’s claim(s).

 

Remember that, generally speaking, even a well-formed argument is only as plausible as its least plausible premise.

 

Argument for Analysis:

 

        "Killing animals for food, causes unnecessary pain and suffering"

        "Causing unnecessary pain and suffering is wrong"

therefore,

        "Killing animals for food is wrong"

 

First one needs to identify the conclusion. (Of what point is the author trying to convince me?) and then identify the premises. (What reasons, if any has the author given in support of the conclusion?)  After one does that, one can move into an analysis of the argument.

 

Support Question:

 

                1. If the premises were true would they make the conclusion more likely to be true?

 

Yes. In fact, the argument above is Deductively Valid[1]; (This argument form is called “Barbara”)

 

Barbara

Still Barbara

 

                All A are B           

                All B are C

Therefore

                All A are C

 

 

                All K are C           

                All C are W

Therefore

                All K are W

Literally the same argument form.

 

Content Question

 

                2. Are the premises good?

 

No.  Content (premises) not good.

 

Problems with Premise One:

 

        1. Pain to Whom? (Vagueness question)

        2. Unnecessary for what? (Vagueness question)

        3. Unspecified Quantifier: Some or All? (Vagueness question)

        4. Who’s doing the killing? (Vagueness question)

 

These problems in and of themselves show the argument does not work.  It is insufficient to persuade any critical thinker, because it is not at all clear, given the actual text, what the author is asserting by means of the premises and so we cannot determine whether they are true or reasonable.  Consequently  one cannot determine whether one should accept them or not.

 

The initial argument has been proven unsuccessful, inadequate to establishing its conclusion. 

 

Note: This, in and of itself, constitutes philosophical progress.

 

But the conversation continues: (dialectic)

 

In response to vagueness objections (#1-4)

 

If the person is around you could simply ask him or her for clarification of a vague term.  But if the person is unavailable then to advance the dialogue you need to fill in the blanks so to speak.

 

Principle of Charity

 

Suppose what a reasonable person would have probably meant where the argument is vague (unless you could simply ask the arguer).  This is called the Principle of Charity.

 

Extending a charitable interpretation to the vague terms we identified we might get this:

 

                1. “pain” to the animals.

                2. “unnecessary” for good human health and nutrition.

                3. All

                4. Human killing.

 

O.K.  now we have: New Argument

 

"All human killing of animals for food, causes pain and suffering to the animals which is unnecessary for good human health and nutrition."

 

"All causing pain and suffering which is unnecessary for good human health and nutrition is wrong."

 

therefore

 

" All human killing of animals for food is wrong"

 

Still good on support but... (further problems with content)

 

        5. Maybe necessary for food.

                a. dietary reasons?

                b. circumstantial reasons?

        6. Maybe no pain.

                a. painless slaughter?

                b. maybe animals don't feel pain?

 

Objections #5 & #6 would defeat even this version since they give us reasons for resisting or rejecting the premises.

 

In responses to remaining objections (# 5 & 6)

 

5a: Eating meat is dietarily necessary for good human health and nutrition.

 

If true, then this would show that premise one is false.

 

Is it in fact true?

 

Let me first point out that whether this premise is true or not is NOT a philosophical question.  Rather it is a straight-out empirical question (and thus NOT a philosophical question).   Science must decide if meat is necessary for good human health and nutrition or not. (Ask a nutritionist, dietitian, physician, etc.)

 

But in point of fact, it has been shown that meat is unnecessary.

 

However, we also know from the science of nutrition, that if we do not include meat in our diets, we must be careful to include other foods to provide us with proteins, and other nutrients found in meat.  This underscores objection 5b.

 

5b. There are circumstances where killing animals for food is necessary for good health and human nutrition.

 

If true, this would defeat premise one.  At least at those times, in those circumstances, killing animals for food would be necessary for good health and human nutrition.  Therefore, the claim that ALL killings of animals was unnecessary is false. 

 

So, is 5b true?

 

Yes, it seems true.  And I don’t merely mean when one’s plane crashes in the Andes and the only available nutrition available is a llama, although that alone would be sufficient to show that ALL is too broad a generalization.  But historically, for the better part of human history, meat was necessary when food supplies were limited and unreliable. Indeed, it is speculated this is why humans started domesticating livestock in the first place.

 

But, the vegetarian might counter, it is not necessary in contemporary industrialized societies which have year-round access to a wide variety of food stuffs.  Nevertheless. the claim “All human killing of animals for food, causes pain and suffering to the animals which is unnecessary for good human health and nutrition.” is false.  The Vegetarian must narrow her focus to those times and places where vegetarianism is a real practical possibility.

 

6a. There would be no pain caused if the slaughter process was itself painless.

 

Since it is true that we can and sometimes do kill animals in a painless way, the ALL is too broad.  If even one time someone killed and animal for food in a painless way, the statement is false.  Again, the Vegetarian must narrow her focus to those times and methods of killing animals for food which are NOT painless.

 

6b. “We cannot know whether animals feel pain or not, therefore we cannot know whether premise 1 is true or not.”

 

We can dismiss this objection (6b) readily.  Animals not only exhibit “pain behavior,” they also have the biology to support conscious pain (unlike a tape recorder or a robot).  Everything we know about pain indicates that animals which exhibit certain kinds of behavior and who possess a certain degree in neurological sophistication strongly indicates that they are capable of pain perception.  Since the evidence is so strong in favor of this and there seems no evidence against this claim, it seems far more reasonable to conclude that animals DO feel pain than it is to deny this or remain agnostic about it.  (This despite the fact that we can only infer the subjective states; we cannot directly verify them.)[2]

 

O.K.  Now we have: New Argument

 

"All human killing of animals for food, as practiced by the commercial meat industry (6a), in the 21st Century U.S. (5b), causes pain and suffering to the animals which is unnecessary for good human health and nutrition."

 

"All Causing pain and suffering which is unnecessary for good human health and nutrition is wrong."

 

Therefore:

 

" All human killing of animals for food, as practiced by the commercial meat industry, in the 21st Century U.S., is wrong."

 

We now have a much tighter argument.  It still has good form.  (It’s still Barbara.)  But now the premises are much clearer, more reasonable and, ostensibly, true.

 

Epilogue: The foregoing represents Philosophy in method and content.

 

–         It is theory postulation, justification, critical review and revision on a non-empirical, but nevertheless meaningful question.

 

–         Note: More specifically, this is an ethical conversation (dialectic) which proceeds by theory postulation, justification, critical review and revision.

 

Final Thoughts:

 

Further revisions are still needed. (What about clams and shrimp for instance?[3])

 

Also, be clear on what the argument establishes (if anything) and what it does NOT establish.  For instance, this argument does NOT establish that eating meat is wrong.  How do I know?  Because the words “eating” and “meat” appear nowhere in the argument.

 

You could try to go there from where we are, but that would take a conceptual bridge from the conclusion we have established (Killing animals, so qualified, is wrong,) to a further, new conclusion (Eating meat is wrong.).  This would necessarily be a new argument which would itself be subjected to critical review.

 


[1] Technically is it only valid is on given certain quantifiers, but I talk about that a little further on.

[2] BTW:  This is a Philosophical Issue called “The Problem of Other Minds” and is explored in movies like “Bladerunner,” “I Robot,” and “AI” etc.. (i.e.I know I have a mind/ subjective experience, but how do I know anything else does including robots or even you?)

[3] Why do shrimp and clams present a problem for this argument?