Now that we understand validity, we can use the notion of validity in
reconstructing arguments. Now, the point of reconstructing an
argument is to put it in a shape that makes it easier for us to assess the
argument more accurately and fairly for whether it's a good argument or a bad
argument. And when we do the reconstruction,
remember, you want to make it as good an argument
as possible because you don't learn anything from putting down your enemies
by making them look silly, right?
If you want to learn from somebody else's argument, you need to put it in the best
shape you can to make it look as good as possible.
So, that's going to be the goal of reconstruction. And we are going to
accomplish that goal in a series of stages.
The first stage simply to do a close analysis and we talked about that last
week. The second stage is to get down to
basics. That is to remove all the excess words
and focus on the premises and conclusions that really make up the argument and then
put those into standard form. The third stage is to clarify those
premises. They're not always going to be as clear
as you like and that's going to take some work and it's going to include breaking
them into parts. And then, the next stage is to take those
parts and organize them, to put them in order, so you can see how the argument
flows from one part to another. But not all arguments are complete so the
next stage, we have to fill in the gaps, that is supply suppressed premises.
And once we've done that, then the final stage is going to be assess the argument.
If we are able to come up with a sound reconstruction, we know that the
conclusion has to be true. Because as we learned in the previous
lecture, the conclusion of sound arguments is always true.
But if we don't come up with a sound reconstruction, then we've got to decide,
is it the fault of the argument or is it our own fault because we didn't come up
with a sound reconstruction when there really is one that we didn't find.
So, that's going to be something we have to discuss.
We're going to discuss all of these stages over the next few lectures.
Now, the first stage of reconstruction is to do a close analysis.
But we already learned how to do that, [LAUGH] that was easy.
Boy, I hope the rest of them are that easy.
This lecture is mainly going to be about the second stage, namely getting down to
basics. And what we want to do is to pull out the
explicit premise and conclusion from all the other words around it.
And the first step is to remove all the excess verbiage.
You know, it might seem very surprising but people often repeat themselves, I'm
sure you've all run into it. I mean, you listen to somebody give a, a
talk and it takes them fifty minutes to say what they could have said easily in
five minutes and one of the reasons is that they say everything ten times.
You know, for instance, people often say the same thing twice, they repeat
themselves. They say the same thing over again and
they restate the point in different words and they utter sentences that mean the
same thing. And they say something and then, you
know, they say it again and they make a claim twice or more.
They exert exactly what they just said and they reformulate their claim in
different words that are equivalent. They say it once and then, they say it
again, you get the idea. Now, here is a real example from a US
politician during a debate. I'm going to be honest with people, we
can't eliminate this deficit. People have heard that over and over
again in four years, we cannot do it, we're in too deep a hole.
Now, if you think about it, it's going to be obvious that we cannot do it.
Repeats, we can't eliminate this deficit, because that's what it's doing, it is
eliminating the deficit. But also, we're in too deep a hole.
Well, that's just a metaphorical way of saying the same thing.
Why is the hole too deep? Because we can't get out of it.
What hole is it? It's the deficit hole.
So, to say we can't get out of this hole, we're in too deep a hole.
It's just another way of saying we can't eliminate the deficit.
So, in these three lines, he's already repeated himself three times.
Now, why does this politician repeat himself?
It might be that he thinks people will remember it better or one version will
make more sense than another. But he might have a special reason
because this was a live debate and he had to give a 90-second answer.
So, he had to fill up the time. Sometimes people repeat themselves just
to fill up the time or maybe to give himself time to think because he didn't
have a real answer ready yet and repeating himself is easy while he thinks
about what he's really going to say in the next few sentences.
Fine. But repeating it still doesn't make the
argument any better and we want to get down to the basics of the argument that
is the parts of the argument that really affect how good it is, so we can cross
out those repetitions that don't make the argument any better.
So first, we can cross out we cannot do it.
Then, we can cross out, we're in too deep a hole.
We already saw that those are just repeating the claim that we can't
eliminate the deficit. In addition, we can cross out, I want to
be honest with people because that's not a reason to believe we're in too deep a
deficit. And next, we can cross out that people
have heard that over and over again in four years.
Well, that might be seen as a reason to believe that we're in a deficit because
everybody seems to say it, but let's assume that's not part of his argument
here and we'll cross it out. Now, let's move on.
A second form of excess verbiage that is words that don't contribute to the force
of the argument is what I like to call road markers.
A lot of times, people, you know, good speakers, they tell you what topic they
are talking about and why they are talking about it.
Why it's important and worth talking about.
But to say why it's an important issue and to say what issue it is, doesn't
provide any reason to believe that what they say about the issue is true or
false. So, it doesn't contribute to the
argument. Here's an example from the same
politician in the same debate as we just saw.
This politician said, now, I want to go back to the whole issue of healthcare,
because we touched it, and I think the American people deserve to know what we
would do different. And notice that he says, he's going to
talk about healthcare but he doesn't say anything about healthcare.
He didn't tell you what he's going to say about healthcare.
All he says is he wants to go back to that issue.
And he tells you why he wants to go back to that issue.
But he doesn't add any reason to believe that what he's about to say about the
issue is true. Now, this can, of course, still be useful
because you might get confused about what the issue is and he might be changing the
topic and he wants to signal that he is changing the topic, and that will help
his listeners. But it still doesn't add to the argument,
it doesn't give you any reason for the conclusion that he's going to want to
draw. We can cross out these excess words. we
can cross out, now, I want to go back to the whole issue of healthcare because
that doesn't show that his views on healthcare are correct.
And we can cross out because we touched it.
That's a reason why we're going to that issue, but again, that doesn't give any
reason why his views are correct. And we can even cross out, but I think
the American people deserve to know what we would do different because the fact
that they deserve to know what you're going to do doesn't show that what you're
going to do is the right thing to do. So, none of these claims are really
reasons that are going to be reasons for the main part of his argument, which is
to support the particular views on healthcare that he's going to tell you
about a few seconds after this. The next type of excess verbiage is
tangents. People go off on tangents all the time.
Here's an example. You know, you really ought to think about
taking a History course. I, I still remember my History courses in
college. There was this one time when, there was a
dog that one of the students brought to class and, and the dog like barked and
then he ran up on stage and he, he cut under the professor and knocked the
professor on his rear-end. It was really funny.
So, you know, I think that History is a good thing to study.
Now, notice that all this stuff about the dog has nothing to do with History.
It's no reason to take a History course instead of a Philosophy course or a
Classics course or a Science course. The same thing could happen in those
courses just as well. So, the tangent plays a certain role.
It makes it interesting. It keeps your attention.
Maybe it makes it memorable for you, what he said.
But it doesn't actually provide a reason why you ought to take a History course.
So, since those parts of the words were just
a tangent that don't provide any reason we can cross them out, too, because they
are excess verbiage. But sometimes, people go off on
irrelevant tangents. Not just by accident because they lose
their train of thought, but because they're trying to fool you.
They're trying to produce what is called a red herring.
The name red hearing supposedly comes from somebody who crossed the red herring
over the trail and then the hound couldn't track its scent anymore.
And that's basically what's going on here.
Sometimes, people produce tangents that distracts you from the main line of
argument because they know that there are weaknesses in that line of argument and
they don't want you to notice them. That's what a red herring is.
And it's a type of tangent that you have to learn to watch out for.
Because if you want to see the problems in your opponent's arguments or even in
your friend's arguments, then you need to not get distracted by tangents that are
in effect red herrings. Yet, another example of excess verbiage
is, well, examples. Here's an example of that.
A different politician in the same debate said this.
Here's what happened. In the time that they have been in office
in the last four years, 1.6 million private sector jobs have been
lost, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been
lost. And it's had real consequences in places
like Cleveland. Cleveland is a wonderful distinguished
city. It's done a lot of great things, but it
has the highest poverty rate in the country.
One out of almost two children in Cleveland are now living in poverty.
Now, notice that this politician is talking about the unemployment rate in
the rest of the country, in the country as a whole.
So, why bring in Cleveland? Well, you might be saying that Cleveland
shows that there's problems throughout the rest of the country, but that can't
be right because Cleveland is just one example.
And it might be an outlier that doesn't represent the general trends.
So, what he's doing with this example is he's trying to bring it down the home,
and make you feel for the real effects. But he doesn't come out and say that you
can generalize from Cleveland to the rest of the country, or that everyone else is
suffering in exactly the same way. He's just giving one example.
And so, it doesn't really support his general claim that the unemployment is a
problem throughout the whole country. That means that it's not an extra premise
in the argument and we can cross it out like other forms of excess verbiage.
Now, we've seen that excess verbiage can take the form of repetition or road
markers or tangents or examples. And people use these a lot.
Matter of fact, I like to think of a general trick that
people use called the trick of excess verbiage.
A lot of people talk too much and they keep saying things over and over again,
go off on tangents, and give more examples than they really need.
And all of that is a way of hiding the problem with their position.
It's a trick to use too many words because the real point gets lost in the
middle of those words. So, you can fool people by throwing in
those extra words. That's the trick of excess verbiage but
be careful. What seems like excess verbiage that's
just there to trick you might really be an essential part of the argument.
So what you need to do when you have a passage and you're trying to get the
argument out of it, is to cross out all the excess words but also look at what's
left over. If what's left over is enough premises
and conclusion to make a good argument, then the stuff that you crossed out
probably really is excess. But if it turns out that what's left over
is not a very good argument, to autocheck all those words you crossed out and make
sure they really weren't necessary. because you're not being fair to the
person that you're interpreting if you crossed out something that was an
essential part of the argument. And some cases are going to be tricky.
Its not going to be clear whether or not to cross the noun.
Some small words that are tricky are guarding terms.
Here is an example. I think Miranda is at home so we can meet
her there. What's the guarding word?
You already found that out when you did the close analysis,
right? I think.
Now, one way to read this argument is that the premises I think Miranda is at
home and the conclusion is we can meet her there.
But that's kind of weird because the fact that you think she is at home is not what
makes it true that you can meet her there, it's the fact that she is at home
that can make it the case that you can meet her there.
So, if the premise is about what you think, and the conclusion is about where
she is and where you can meet her, then the argument doesn't make any sense.
So, in this case, what we want to do is to cross out the words I think, because
that's going to make the argument silly and the argument really amounts to,
Miranda is at home, so we can meet her there.
And the I think covers that whole thing. It's saying, I think she's at home, so I
think we can meet her there. But the argument doesn't involve some
premise about what your thoughts are and contrast this with a different argument.
Miranda is at home, so we can probably meet her there.
Now, there's another guarding term, right?
Probably. Can you get rid of that?
Well, then the argument becomes Miranda is at home, so we can meet her there.
But that's clearly not what the speaker was trying to say, if they included the
word probably. They realized that the fact that she's at
home right now doesn't mean that we can meet her there because it might take us
awhile to get there and she might leave while we're on the way.
So, it's not fair to the person giving the argument.
And it makes the argument look worse to cross out the word, probably.
So, in that case, you want to keep the guarding term in order to properly
represent the force of the argument. So, it looks like sometimes, you need to
keep the guarding terms and sometimes, you need to cross them out.
And there's not going to be any strict rule that you can follow.
You have to use your sense of what's going to make the argument as good as
possible. What's going to fit what the speaker was
really trying to say. Another tricky case is assuring terms.
Suppose I'm writing a letter of recommendation and I say,
he is clearly a great worker. I know that.
So, you ought to hire him. The assuring terms are clearly and I know
that. But now, the question is, is the argument
really first premise, he's clearly a great worker.
Second premise, I know that. Conclusion, you ought to hire him.
It's kind of weird. Again, if you think about it, because
you're not hiring him because it's clear. If he's a great worker but it's not clear
that he's a great worker, then you're still ought to hire him because he is a
great worker. Or if he's a great worker and I don't know he's a great worker, you
still ought to hire him because he's a great worker.
The fact that I know it is irrelevant to whether you want to hire him because
that's about my mental states not his abilities.
So, that representation of the argument doesn't really capture the force of
somebody who writes this letter of recommendation.
So, we can cross out the words I know that and we can cross out clearly, and
then the argument is he's a great worker so you ought to hire him.
But contrast this example. I am certain that Jacob is cheating on
his wife, so I ougt to tell her. Now, you might think I am certain that is
just another assuring term so we can cross it out.
And then, the real argument is Jacob is cheating on his wife so I ought to tell
her. But now, think about that argument.
The mere fact that he's cheating on his wife doesn't mean I ought to tell her if
I'm not certain because if I have some suspicions or I'm just guessing, but I
really don't know, then I probably ought not to tell Jacob's wife that, you know,
Jacob was cheating on her. So here, the force of the argument, does
seem to depend on my certainty. If I'm not certain, I shouldn't tell her.
If I am certain, maybe I should. So, we can't cross out the assuring term
in this case because that would distort the argument.
And, of course, some people might disagree with that.
They might say, well, look, if you have some reason but your not certain then you
ought to tell her and that could be controversial.
But we're talking here not about what those people think but what the speaker
thinks, the person giving this argument when this
person said,"I'm I'm certain that Jacob is cheating on his wife." They seemed to
indicate that to them, the fact that they are certain provides an even better
reason why he should tell Jacob's wife. So, if we want to capture what the person
giving the argument intended in this case, we have to leave them the assuring
term. So, you're seeing one example, where you
ought to get rid of the assuring terms. And another example, where you ought to
keep the reassuring terms. And just like with guarding terms the
same point applies. There is no mechanic rule that will apply
to every case. You have to think through the argument
and decide whether crossing out those words and removing them distorts the
argument or instead, crossing them out makes the argument look even better
because the point of removing excess verbiage is to get rid of the things that
aren't necessary but keep everything that is necessary to make the argument look as
good as it possibly can look. Finally, once we've removed all the
excess verbiage, what's left over? The answer is the
explicit premises and conclusion in the argument.
The point of removing the excess verbiage was to separate those essential parts of
the argument, those basics of the argument from all the
stuff that's unnecessary. Of course, we still have to decide which
ones are premises and which ones the conclusion,
right? And that's why the close analysis helps
because we indicated which ones were reason markers and which ones were
conclusion markers and that lets you to identify that these are the premises and
that's the conclusion. And so now, we can do step three.
We can put the argument standard form. We put the premises above the line and we
put dot pyramid, and then the conclusion below the line.
And we've got the argument in standard form, which completes stage two of the
reconstruction project. At this point, it's useful to look back
at the passage and see whether you've gotten rid off all the excess included
all of the basics of the argument. So, you can look at the passage and say,
is everything that's not crossed out in a premise or a conclusion of the standard
form. And if there's something that's still
there in the passage that isn't used, you've got to decide at that point is it
really excess or not. And, of course, if the argument looks
really bad, you've got to look back and see whether it's missing something that
you had crossed out as being excess verbiage when it really was an essential
part of the argument. So, we can use this process of putting it
into standard form as a test of whether we've performed properly the other step
of getting rid of excess verbiage. So, steps two and three really work
together in this stage two of getting down to basics.
That's what helps us to use the different parts to see whether we've done each of
them properly.