Philosophical Arguments: What Makes Them Valid?

Philosophy is concerned with the critical examination of arguments to determine their validity. An argument in philosophy is a set of reasons offered in support of a conclusion. The arguer is the person who offers these reasons, and the conclusion is what they want their audience to believe. Arguments are made up of two components: the conclusion and the reasons offered to support it, known as the premises. Arguments can be deductive or inductive, and a valid argument is one in which the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. The goal of an argument is not to attack an opponent but to offer reasons that all parties can accept. Arguments can be used to support or defend a viewpoint and are an important tool for improving critical thinking skills and fostering understanding.

Explore related products

A Theory of Argument

$29.89 $50

Money-Pump Arguments (Elements in Decision Theory and Philosophy)

$22 $23

Straw Man Arguments: A Study in Fallacy Theory

$39.95 $35.95

Political Argument in a Polarized Age: Reason and Democratic Life

$14.95 $14.95

Karl Marx, 2nd Edition (Arguments of the Philosophers)

$37.59 $46.99

The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality

$19.26 $22.95

Deductive arguments

In philosophy, an argument is a set of reasons offered in support of a conclusion. Arguments have two components: the conclusion and the reasons offered to support it. The conclusion is what an "arguer" wants people to believe, and the reasons offered are called premises.

For example, consider the following argument:

Premise 1: Socrates is a man.

Premise 2: All men are mortal.

Assuming the truth of the two premises, it seems that it must be the case that Socrates is mortal. This is a deductive argument because the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.

It is important to note that the premises in a deductive argument may be false, in which case the conclusion may also be false. For example:

Premise 1: If today is Monday, the moon is made of green cheese.

Premise 2: Today is Monday.

This argument is deductively valid because the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. However, the conclusion is false because one or more of the premises are false.

Premise 1: Most Greeks eat olives.

Premise 2: Socrates is Greek.

This is an inductive argument because the conclusion is likely to be true given the premises, but it does not follow with logical necessity. Inductive arguments are not logically watertight, as other conclusions are still logically possible.

The distinction between deductive and inductive arguments has a long history in philosophy, dating back to Aristotle's works on logic. Many contemporary philosophers continue to explore and critique these two types of arguments, highlighting their importance in the field.

Abductive arguments

In philosophy, an argument is a set of reasons offered in support of a conclusion. The arguer is the person who offers reasons for a specific conclusion. Arguments have two components: the conclusion and the reasons offered to support it.

Abductive reasoning often involves a creative, intuitive, and even revolutionary process. It usually begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set. For example, a medical diagnosis is an application of abductive reasoning, where a doctor tries to find the diagnosis that would best explain a given set of symptoms. Similarly, in a criminal case, jurors must consider which side has the best explanation to cover all the points of evidence.

Abductive reasoning is characterized by a lack of completeness, either in the evidence or the explanation, or both. It is important to note that abductive arguments may not always be reliable or cogent. Humans tend to overshoot in their quest for causal explanations and often seek simplicity where none exists.

In philosophy, abduction plays a significant role in various debates, especially in epistemology and the philosophy of science. Abduction is frequently invoked in objections to underdetermination arguments, which claim that multiple hypotheses are empirically equivalent, making it impossible for any evidence to favor one over the others. Defenders of abduction argue that even if hypotheses make the same predictions, one may still be a better explanation of the phenomena.

Analogy arguments

An argument in philosophy is a set of reasons offered in support of a conclusion. Arguments have two components: the conclusion and the reasons offered to support it. The reasons offered are called premises.

For example, consider the following analogy argument: "Capitalists are like vampires". This argument does not explicitly state a conclusion, but it implies that if vampires and capitalists are similar in some ways, then what is true of one group might be true of the other.

Analogical arguments are widely used across different domains of human reasoning and have suggested fruitful lines of inquiry in many fields. They are one of the most common methods by which humans try to understand the world and make decisions. For example, if someone has a bad experience with a product, they might decide not to buy anything else from the same producer, as the two products share a maker and are therefore both perceived as being bad.

When constructing an analogy argument, it is important to make clear in what ways the two objects being compared are supposed to be similar. We can then determine whether they are indeed similar in the relevant respects and whether those aspects of similarity support the conclusion.

The strength of an analogy argument can be evaluated by considering the truth and relevance of the comparison. Firstly, we need to check that the two objects being compared are indeed similar in the way assumed. Secondly, even if two objects are similar, we need to ensure that those aspects in which they are similar are relevant to the conclusion.

It is worth noting that analogy arguments do not always have to be inductive; some good analogy arguments are deductively valid. For example, consider the following argument: "X and Y are similar in that they are both isosceles triangles (a triangle with two equal sides). X has two equal internal angles. Therefore, Y has two equal internal angles." This argument is deductively valid, as the conclusion logically follows from the premises.

In conclusion, analogy arguments are a powerful tool in philosophy and other fields, allowing us to draw inferences and make decisions based on perceived similarities between two objects or concepts. However, it is important to carefully evaluate the truth and relevance of the comparison to ensure the validity of the argument.

Explore related products

Quine (Arguments of the Philosophers)

$41.79 $54.99

Everyday Arguments and the Theory of Argumentation

$29.95

The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory

$42.68 $56.95

Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time (Princeton Foundations of Contemporary Philosophy)

$17 $27.95

The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception

$25.47 $45

The Arguments of Time (British Academy Centenary Monographs)

$47.92 $60

Transcendental arguments

In philosophy, an argument is a set of reasons offered in support of a conclusion. The conclusion is what an "arguer" wants people to believe, and the reasons offered are called premises. Arguments can contain empirical evidence or information about the world gathered through the senses. They can also contain principles, which are general rules or laws.

Kant's transcendental arguments have been the subject of much discussion and dispute, particularly concerning his commitment to transcendental idealism and his intentions. Later scholars have developed a variety of objections to the transcendental argument strategy, and some contemporary philosophers have offered updated strategies similar in form but with less controversial premises and more modest goals.

Kant's transcendental arguments are also related to his project of responding to an opponent who questions the conceptual legitimacy of external-world concepts like substance and cause. This is the focus of his Transcendental Deduction of the Categories in the Critique of Pure Reason. In this work, he employs a legal metaphor to distinguish between "what is lawful (quid juris) and that which concerns the fact (quid facti)". His focus is on the "lawfulness" of our application of external-world concepts.

Kant's ethical writings also feature several transcendental arguments, including one aimed at refuting epistemic skepticism and showing the legitimacy of applying certain concepts to experience. This argument has been interpreted as an argument against the problematic idealism of Descartes, who holds that the existence of objects outside us in space is "doubtful and indemonstrable."

Fallible arguments

In philosophy, an argument is a set of reasons offered in support of a conclusion. The conclusion is what the 'arguer' wants people to believe, and the reasons offered are called premises. Arguments can contain empirical evidence or information about the world, as well as principles or general rules and laws.

However, not all arguments are good arguments. Bad arguments are those in which the reasons do not support the conclusion. For example, arguments with false conclusions can sometimes use good reasoning, and conversely, arguments with true conclusions can use terrible reasoning.

Fallibilism is a concept that embraces the uncertainty of human knowledge and understanding. It is the idea that all assertions are provisional and open to revision in light of new evidence. This idea has been attributed to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who made a distinction between potential and actual infinities. Actual infinities, he argued, do not exist because they are paradoxical. This led to the idea that humans cannot keep adding members to finite sets indefinitely.

In the mid-twentieth century, several philosophers, including Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos, critiqued the foundations of logical positivism. Popper, a critical rationalist, argued that scientific knowledge grows from falsifying conjectures, and that all scientific claims are revisable. Imre Lakatos implemented mathematical proofs into what he called "critical fallibilism".

In the eighteenth century, Scottish philosopher David Hume invented what is now called inductive skepticism. Hume's conclusion has been interpreted as saying that observations never rationally support extrapolations beyond observational data. This has led to the idea that predictions are rationally useless and that beliefs beyond observational reports are nothing more than guesses.

• Argument from fallacy (fallacy fallacy): assuming that if a particular argument for a conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false.
• Base rate fallacy: making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities without considering prior probabilities.
• Conjunction fallacy: assuming an outcome satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than one satisfying a single condition.
• Non sequitur fallacy: when the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.
• Continuum fallacy: improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.
• Definitional retreat: changing the meaning of a word when an objection is raised.
• Argument from incredulity: deeming something false because one cannot imagine it to be true, or conversely, holding that it must be true because one cannot see how it could be false.

These are just a few examples of fallible arguments. The study of fallacies and fallible arguments is important in philosophy and other fields to improve our understanding and avoid common reasoning errors.

Frequently asked questions