Week 3: How to criticise arguments

1.1. Essays

2.1. Equivocation

1. Definition from presentation
   

   Ein Argument enthält (mindestens eine) schädliche Äquivokation, wenn dasselbe Wort in ihm an unterschiedlichen Stellen in einem klar unterscheidbaren Sinn gebraucht wird, die Schlüssigkeit aber denselben Sinn erfordert.

2. An example
   
   1. Laws imply lawgivers
   2. There are laws in nature

   Therefore, there must be a cosmic lawgiver

   • Why is this equivocation?

2.2. Begging the question

1. Definition from presentation
   

   Eine Petitio Principii liegt in einem Argument genau dann vor, wenn mindestens eine seiner Prämissen bereits seine Konklusion auf solch eine Weise voraussetzt, dass das Argument für den Gesprächskontext nicht relevant ist.

2.3. Infinite regress

1. Definition from presentation
   

   mindestens einige der Prämissen benötigen eine Begründung desselben Typs wie die Konklusion. Deshalb sind selbst nach beliebigen Begründungsschritten dieses Typs immer noch mindestens einige Prämissen unbegründet.'

2.4. Lost contrast

1. Definition from presentation
   

   Ein verlorener Gegensatz besteht zwischen mehreren Positionen eines Philosophierenden, wenn diese zwei Spezies eines Genus, die durch Eigenschaft P unterschieden werden, unterschiedliche Eigenschaften zuspricht, die sich nicht auf P zurückführen lassen.

2.5. Emptiness

1. Definition from presentation
   

   Eine philosophische Position ist eine leere Behauptung genau dann, wenn sie in keiner Weise relevant für irgendeine andere relevante Position ist.'

2. An example
   
   • very minimal understanding of God
     • Might as well not exist?

2.6. I am confused

3.1. Practice formalising (group work, yipee)

1. We draw from the text
   

   'It has been argued that we have reason to know that the future will resemble the past, because what was the future has constantly become the past, so that we really have experience of the future, namely of times which were formally future, which we may call past futures. But such an argument really begs the very question at issue. We have experience of past futures, but not of future futures, and the question is: Will future futures resemble past futures? This question is not to be answered by an argument which starts from past futures alone' – Betrand Russell

   • Lay out the premises and conclusion of the argument that Russell is criticising here
     • Not Russell's argument
   • Don't be afraid to add additional hidden premises
   • Make it so that it obviously begs the question
     • A negative view of it
2. The one I prepared earlier
   
   1. We can make a claim about a type of thing by having experience of it
   2. This is because our future experiences of a type of thing will resemble previous ones (i.e the future resembles the past)
   3. We have experienced futures in the past (when the future became the present)
   4. These futures which we experienced resembled our past experiences

   Therefore, by premise 2,3, the future resembles the past

3.2. Questions/pointers while we read Hume

1. Warning about Hume!
   
   • It's difficult
   • Let me know any language difficulties
2. For section 28
   
   1. The skill of skipping over stuff
      
      • We are jumping in half way
      • It's an important skill to be able to know what it's ok that I don't get
   2. What philosophical virtues does Hume advocate for?
      
   3. Interesting style
      
      • What stuff does Hume do here that might be good, but that we will struggle to pull off ourselves?
3. For section 29
   
   1. He makes scientific claims that are no longer correct!
      
      • Does this ruin the argumentation here?
      • Can we provide a more modern version
        • Principle of charity (not (just) about being nice)
4. For section 30
   
   1. An argumentative tecnique! The fork
      
   2. Understanding weird terminology
      
      • People introduce their own, or we come accross old stuff
5. For section 31
   
   1. Does Hume conclude that induction is not real?
      
      • Why do we care about this stuff about the madman?
6. For section 32
   
   • Is this just repetition?
   • If so, is this a flaw
7. For section 33
   
   • Give it a go with premises and conclusions
   • Do we have any criticisms?