Content Fallacies

In the text, Epstein discusses fallacies in arguments, which are arguments that are bad and can not be fixed. An argument can typically be made a fallacy by how the argument is phrased, or more importantly, by what the context of the argument is. This type of fallacy is called a content fallacy. Content fallacies have premises that are either doubtful or unrelated to the conclusion, or both. In short, a content fallacy is an argument that makes no sense based on the logic portrayed by the speaker.

For example, I could say that "Online classes require too much from students, therefore this class will require us to post at least 12 hours apart." This is an example of confusing subjective and objective claims. Usually in a strong argument, one will pose an objective claim before a subjective claim, because we have learned that for an argument to be good, the premises have to be more plausible than the conclusion. In my example, I pose a subjective claim first, which is dependent on one's beliefs, making it less plausible than the conclusion, which is an objective claim, something that is not dependent on one's beliefs. This makes my statement a contextual fallacy. If I wanted a strong argument, I would have switched the two claims around and re-structured them to avoid creating a fallacy.

Argument Structure Example #2

The original statement is as follows:

"I'm on my way to school. I left five minutes late. 1 Traffic is heavy. 2 Therefore, I'll be late for class. 3 So I might as well stop and get breakfast. 4" (Epstein, 225).

First, It can be recognized that this is an argument. I have labeled each part that can be considered as a claim. The conclusion is "I might as well stop and get breakfast." Additional premises are that if someone leaves later than usual for class, then they will automatically be late. As for subarguments, 1 and 2 are independent and support, and 3 supports the conclusion. As for the strength of the argument, I see it as a good argument, however it is an assumption that the person will be late. Even though there is traffic, that doesn't necessarily mean that the speaker will be late. The claim is not that good.

I think this exercise was helpful in analyzing statements step by step to further understand exactly how strong they are.

Good Reason to Believe

Chapter 3 in the Epstein text is thorough in its' descriptions and examples of what a good argument is, almost too thorough. Through reading the chapter, I felt that there were so many sections and definitions of what makes a good, valid, or strong argument, and that some of them didn't match up. The section that helped me understand exactly what a good argument is was the first section, titled: "Good Reason to Believe," where the true definition of a good argument was presented clear and simple. The section states that: "a good argument is one in which the premises give good reason to believe the conclusion is true" (Epstein, 37). I found this definition incredibly helpful, and I came back to it time and time again while working on creating my own examples.

Basically, the definition given in this section by Epstein incorporates many of the sections in the chapter into one statement. The "good reason' portion of the definition refers to the section "The Conclusion Follows From the Premises," pointing out that there needs to be a strong relation between the premises and conclusion. It also points out the differences between a strong and a weak argument.

I really found this section helpful. Hopefully you all will too.

Strong Versus Valid Arguments

We already know that if an argument has premises and a conclusion that are true, then the argument is valid, and therefore very good. Every valid argument is good. The term "strong" comes into play when the conclusion can be false, therefore making the argument invalid. It depends on technically how false the conclusion is. If the conclusion is nowhere possible, then the argument is invalid and poor. If the conclusion is any bit possible, then it is strong. In short, an argument does not have to be valid to be strong. It has to be strong to be valid.

Here's an example of an argument that is strong, yet not valid. "The sun is out, so it can't be nighttime." It is a strong argument. The sun typically shows itself during the daytime, but this argument is not valid. Closer to the poles (of the earth), sometimes they will get 24 hours of sunlight, and therefore the sun will be out at nighttime. Since the conclusion is possibly false, the argument is not valid. However, in most cases, this statement will be true, making the argument strong.

Testing a Good Argument

When someone makes an argument, it is important to decide whether it is valid or not. Some people will make very reasonable arguments, as long as they meet a set of rules that all good arguments adhere to. According to Epstein, a good argument must have premises that are plausible and "more plausible than the conclusion" (Epstein, 42). The argument also has to be strong in order for it to be good.

First, I think it's important to recognize what exactly the "premises" and "conclusion" represent. Keep in mid that the premises is usually one or two statements that are true, or considered true, which one then uses as their reasons for their conclusion to be valid. If the statement(s) aren't true, then they are not plausible, and the argument will be weak. The conclusion is a statement that one believes is plausible, based on the premises. The stronger the conclusion, the more likely the argument will be good.

Let's go back to the tests. The first test is that "The premises are plausible" (Epstein, 42). This means that the first statement must be possible for your argument to be legitimate. The second test is if "The premises are more plausible than the conclusion" (Epstein, 42). Any argument is based on this, since one makes an argument to show why they believe their conclusion is possible. You can't prove something is possible using something that is less possible. The third test is if "The argument is valid or strong" (Epstein, 42). An argument can be possible, yet weak, if the premises are weak and do not give enough information.

An example for an argument is: "Bobby is sick. Bobby can't go to school. So Bobby can't finish his homework."

Going through each test, we can see that the premises are true and plausible, as well as more plausible than the conclusion. Bobby would think that this is a good argument, believing that his sickness gets him out of schoolwork. Not so fast, Bobby! His argument is good, however, not the best one. It is possible for Bobby to get schoolwork done, even though he is sick. It depends on how sick he is, and what is demanded of him in his work. The premises is true, but the conclusion can be false, but still possible. This argument is therefore good, yet not valid.

Definitions

One segment of the text by Epstein that really caught my eye was the segment discussing definitions. We know that a definition refers to a deeper awareness of what a person, place, or thing really is. After reading from the text, we can see that a definition also is the term for an analysis of what we mean when we give a statement that is vague or possible to be misinterpreted. Definitions, in this sense, also make it possible for others to get exactly what we mean.

In my personal opinion, I think that defining exactly what we mean, like the examples given in the book, is going too far. I see it as over-analyzing what we say. If everyone were to clearly define every statement they want to make, our dialect would be completely void of originality and flair. For example, in one passage from the text, a woman implies that another person is rich because: "She's got a Mercedes" (Epstein, 28). Of course, I agree that this is not a definition of "rich," however, it's a funny and original joke , and gives a color to the person who made the comment. A true definition of "rich" would be more accurate in the situation, but honestly, it would also be completely boring and uninteresting.

Vague Sentences

Vague sentences are sentences that are usually misinterpreted becuase the wording is misleading. This makes it difficult for the audience to make sense or believe the statement. Advertisments are a good example of this. The companies they advertise are trying to make a profit off of people, by leading them on and influencing them to spend money on their product. Their choice of wording can make it seem like their product will be helpful, while not promising anything that the buyer might have inferred.

Recently I’ve been seeing many commercials on TV for a company that is attracting inventors to invest in their service. They say that it is easy for inventors to get inventions pattened and submitted to companies, making it seem like it is easy for any invention to become a reality and profitable. However, in the fine print, it is mentioned that it is easy to get inventions pattened...if the inventions meet a set of guidelines to qualify, and that most inventions do not get a pattent. The original statement is vague because the whole story is not provided, and the consumer is led on.

Suggestive + Objective Claims

When someone makes a statement that can be determined as true or false, they are making a claim. Any claim can be seen as correct or incorrect, however its' classification depends on the context of the statement. The context of the statement justifies whether it is either subjective or objective.

A subjective claim is a statement that is true in some people's opinion, and false in others based on their bias toward the subject or situation. Recently I was playing basketball in the gym on campus, where somebody on my team mentioned that someone on the opposite team was annoying. The player on the other team may or may not have been annoying. My teammate obviously was biased towards the situation, since the player was on the other team. The statement is therefore subjective.

An objective claim is a statement which, like a subjective claim, can be true or false. However, Objective claims have no room for bias. It is not dependent on the audience. Let's go back to the gym, where it was stated that one player was 6'7" tall. The player might have been 6'7" tall, and might have not. The answer is not affected by personal bias, and therefore, is an objective claim.