Statements, Arguments, Validity Philosophy and Logic Unit 1, Sections 1.1, 1.2
Mayor Willy Brown on proposition 209: There is still rank discrimination in this country. If there is rank discrimination, then preferences and quotas can be justified as a remedy. ----------- Preferences and quotas can be justified as a remedy. They serve the need for focused attention on assuring equality of opportunity.
Consider the Texaco case (in which executives were tape recorded referring to African Americans as black jelly beans, and the company eventually settled for millions of dollars). Circuit City was found guilty of discrimination in promotions and hiring. Look around you: white males run most newsrooms. They are the captains of industry. They didn t get it on the basis of merit. Shell Oil has had only two African American executives in its entire history. (Bill Press s example.) There is example after example. ------------ There is still rank discrimination in this country.
Ward Connerly s reply: There is no nexus there. We re not talking about Texaco or Shell. We re talking about government.
If preferences and quotas can be justified as a remedy for discrimination, then the people who receive the remedy should be the same as those who were hurt by the discrimination. But there is no nexus there. Preferences and quotas in government hiring and admissions help different people than those hurt by the discrimination of Texaco or Mitsubishi. ------------ Preferences and quotas cannot be justified as a remedy for discrimination.
Connerly s reply He admits that there is discrimination in this society. He allows that courts can order remedies for those discriminated against (as in the Texaco case). He denies that cases like the Texaco case justify the government using preferences and quotas. We re not talking about Texaco or Shell. We re talking about government.
We cannot justify the government giving anyone a preference on the grounds that some institution somewhere else discriminates against people of the same race. Our government should treat all of us equally. ------------ We should eliminate preferences and quotas in all government hiring, contracting, and admissions.
An argument =df. a series of statements offered in support of a conclusion. Note 1: The statements are intended to support the conclusion, but may not succeed in doing so. Bad arguments do not. To define "argument" as "a series of statements that support a conclusion" would exclude all the bad arguments.
Reasons The statements offered to support some conclusion are called premises. Typically the premises are advanced as reasons for believing the conclusion. This works only if the premises are already acceptable. The point is to justify belief in the conclusion as well.
Arguments An argument =df. a collection of statements, one of which (the conclusion) is implicitly or explicitly claimed to be supported by the others (the premises). To find an argument, you need to find both (1) a collection of statements, and (2) an implicit or explicit claim that there is some relation of support from those premises to a conclusion.
Standard form premise 1 premise 2 premise 3 (etc) ------------------------ Conclusion
Example There is still rank discrimination in this country. If there is rank discrimination, then preferences and quotas can be justified as a remedy. ----------- Preferences and quotas can be justified as a remedy.
To state is to put forth words as being true. (Cognates: to affirm, assert, declare, or claim). To make a statement =df. to put forth a sentence as being true. The critical property is the claim to truth. You put forth a sentence as a candidate for truth. Many speech acts do not use words for these purposes (joking, greeting, congratulating, resigning, etc). - You can put forth a sentence as being true even if you know it is false. It's called lying. - You can mislead people even though all the statements you make are literally true.
a statement is true if it corresponds to fact or reality. - Truth is a property (or not) of statements. - It is not purely a conventional matter. - That P is true must be sharply distinguished from the claims that P is believed, believed to be true, widely accepted, probably true, well known, or known at all. - To say "It is true that snow is white" is just to say that snow is white. True statements correspond to reality. Statements can have this property independently of our knowing that they have it.
statements in arguments - The sentence must be a declarative sentence which has a truth value: either true or false. - We don't need to know which truth value it has. It must simply be a candidate. - Try to cast each separate claim as a separate sentence.
A goal for analysis (see unit 3) The sentence should convey as clearly and completely as possible the meaning of the claim in the context of the argument. For example, the reference of pronouns and demonstratives ("this", "that", etc) should be spelled out, and any tacit or elliptical phrases expanded. It should spell out the truth conditions : what the world would have to be like for the claim in question to be true.
The Relation of Support Do the premises, even if true, provide a reason for believing the conclusion? Evaluating this support is distinct from evaluating the truth of any single statement in the argument. Instead one must evaluate whether the following relation obtains: If all the premises are true, then the conclusion is true.
An electrifying analogy The relation of support is a relation. Think of it as a wire that does (or does not) transmit truth from premises to conclusion. If all the premises are lit up, must the conclusion be as well? The wire can be intact even if some of the light bulbs are not on.
So an argument (1) advances a collection of statements (premises), and (2) makes an inference from those premises to some conclusion. A good argument requires both (1) true premises and (2) a strong relation of support from those premises to a conclusion (a good inference). Such an argument provides good reason to believe the conclusion!
How to tell when an inference has been made. premise indicators are words that indicate explicitly that the speaker intends the statement to serve as a premise: a reason for believing something else. conclusion indicators are words that indicate explicitly that the speaker thinks the statement so marked is a conclusion--that it follows from other statements.
Premise indicators since, because, for, as in that, whereas insofar as inasmuch as seeing that for the reason that on the grounds that in view of the fact that given that now
Conclusion indicators therefore, hence, thus, so, ergo, accordingly, consequently whence it follows that which shows that which demonstrates which establishes which proves in consequence
How indicators indicate: P therefore Q P ------------ Q P since Q. Q ------------ P
Since Q, P. Q ------------- P P. Q. Therefore R. P Q ------------ R
Three cautions re indicators They are not always used as indicators. (consider since, now, hence, seeing that, etc.) They are not always necessary (the alternative is an implicit claim of support). They are often confused with if...then statements.
Series of claims vs. implicit argument There s lots of special interest money in politics. Lobbyists have access that ordinary citizens do not. Voter participation in elections is falling. Campaigns are won by TV advertising. The ordinary citizen finds electoral democracy to be less and less important. There s lots of special interest money in politics. Lobbyists have access that ordinary citizens do not. Voter participation in elections is falling. Campaigns are won by TV advertising. Consequently, the ordinary citizen finds electoral democracy to be less and less important.
Inferences vs. if...then statements If...then: If John McCain loses in New Hampshire, then his campaign will be over. An argument: John McCain will lose in New Hampshire, so his campaign will be over.
The differences If John McCain loses in New Hampshire, then his campaign will be over. Does not assert he will lose in NH. It evaluates to one truth-value, which might be false. John McCain will lose in New Hampshire; so his campaign will be over. Asserts he will lose in New Hampshire. Asserts a second statement on the basis of that premise.
Deductive vs. Inductive Deductive: the kind of reasoning used in mathematical proofs See unit 2! Inductive: the kind of reasoning used in statistics, probability, and empirical science See unit 5!
Good Deductive Arguments Similar to proofs Aim at an absolutely air-tight or conclusive relation of support. If all the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST be true Good Inductive Arguments Similar to statistical arguments Premises provide good reasons to believe the conclusion, but not conclusive ones. If all the premises are true, then it is very probable that the conclusion is true.
Deductive arguments with a proper relation of support are called deductively valid (or just "valid"). a deductively valid argument is one in which it is impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Inductive arguments with a proper relation of support are called inductively strong. an inductively strong argument is one in which it is not impossible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false, but it is very unlikely or highly improbable.
If there is rank discrimination in this country, then preferences and quotas can be justified as a remedy. There is still rank discrimination in this country. ----------- Preferences and quotas can be justified as a remedy. If D then P D --------------- Therefore P
Notice that a deductively valid argument is something like a proof. The premises, if true, would provide absolutely conclusive grounds for believing the conclusion. If all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
Inductive arguments do not have the character of a proof. They can still provide good reasons for believing the conclusion, but they are not absolutely conclusive. Consider the Texaco case (in which executives were tape recorded referring to African Americans as black jelly beans, and the company eventually settled for millions of dollars). Circuit City was found guilty of discrimination in promotions and hiring. Look around you: white males run most newsrooms. They are the captains of industry. They didn t get it on the basis of merit. There is example after example. ------------ There is still rank discrimination in this country.
End