The Support Question & The
Content Question
·
Truth
·
Clarity
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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?