What is an argument?

[Kal El]

Hi there. I am currently reading "Philosopher's toolkit" . So, please help me to understand what an argument is.

"An ‘argument’ is an inference from one or more starting points (truth claims called a ‘premise’ or ‘premises’) to an end point (a truth claim called a ‘conclusion’). All arguments require an inferential movement of this sort. For this reason, arguments are called discursive"

This is what the book says

Explain me each line in simple terms please. I am not an native english speaker

I thought argument and inference were different things

[alan1000]

We all believe that certain things are true. An "argument" simply means, the reasons why we think something is true.

An "inference" is not the same as an "argument". An "inference" is the thing we believe to be true; an "argument" is, the reason for thinking it to be true.

Not sure exactly what else about this might be unclear to you?

Maybe I should mention "axioms". An axiom is an inference which we can't prove - we can't find any argument to support it - but we need to believe it because otherwise knowledge just isn't possible. For example, "0 is a number" can't be proved; there is no argument to support it. But we need to believe it because, if we reject it, the whole science of mathematics falls down.

[Leontiskos]

Hi there. I am currently reading "Philosopher's toolkit" . So, please help me to understand what an argument is.

"An ‘argument’ is an inference from one or more starting points (truth claims called a ‘premise’ or ‘premises’) to an end point (a truth claim called a ‘conclusion’). All arguments require an inferential movement of this sort. For this reason, arguments are called discursive"

This is what the book says

Explain me each line in simple terms please. I am not an native english speaker

I thought argument and inference were different things

"Argument" is a general term with a variety of interrelated meanings. I would define it as, "A rational movement from better-known premises to a lesser-known conclusion." "Inference" is the name usually given to the most basic or atomic rational movements, and in this way we see that an argument is constituted by one or more inferences. Arguments must always move from what is better-known to what is lesser-known, for it is only in this way that rational movement is produced.[1]

Here are two examples of arguments, the first using syllogistic logic and the second using propositional logic:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal

1. If Socrates is a man, then he is mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal

The first example uses syllogistic logic, which works by way of forms. This syllogism is in the first form with the "AII" ("Darii") mood, and since this is a valid form-mood combination the inference is valid. A syllogism is an argument with two premises, one inference, and one conclusion.

The second example uses propositional logic, which works by a series of inferential steps. This argument uses only one inference, "modus ponens."[3]

We could extend the second argument by adding a second inference:

1. If Socrates is a man, then he is mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal
4. If Socrates is incorruptible, then he is immortal
5. Therefore, Socrates is corruptible

In this new argument the conclusion, (5), relies on the two premises of (3) and (4) along the inference rule of modus tollens.[4] The implicit premise for the modus tollens inference is, "Socrates is not immortal," which is a direct consequence of (3).

Generally speaking, arguments are meant to be persuasive or at least to make our own reasoning transparent. So a good philosophical argument will show forth all of the individual premises and inferences our mind makes in arriving at some conclusion. In this way either the conclusion can be proven to be true, or else there will be a perfect opportunity to identify the precise errors that were made in the reasoning process. When we give good arguments we make others susceptible to truth (if the argument is sound) and we make ourselves susceptible to error (if the argument is unsound). Thus good arguments are both persuasive and vulnerable, if we may put it that way. Bad arguments, then, are unpersuasive and invulnerable, usually because they are vague and murky rather than clear and transparent.

----------
1. See Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, Book I, 71b20...
2. See "Syllogism | Logic Museum" and "Categorical Syllogisms."
3. See "Modus Ponens | Wikipedia"
4. See "Modus Tollens | Wikipedia"

[Agent Smith]

Dost thou renounce Satan, and all his works, and all his pomps? Dost thou? Mmmm? Mmmm?

Inference = Argument. A survey of philosophical discourse, written/spoken, will attest to that. However, the former has fallen outta use, philosophers preferring argument; perhaps to then be given an opportunity to disabuse, via explanations like this one, us of a popular and dangerous misconception in re arguments. It doesn't always work, didn't with me, but for some the idea clicks into place and then magic!!

[alan1000]

Dost thou renounce Satan, and all his works, and all his pomps? Dost thou? Mmmm? Mmmm?

Inference = Argument. A survey of philosophical discourse, written/spoken, will attest to that. However, the former has fallen outta use, philosophers preferring argument; perhaps to then be given an opportunity to disabuse, via explanations like this one, us of a popular and dangerous misconception in re arguments. It doesn't always work, didn't with me, but for some the idea clicks into place and then magic!!

For god's sake, S, at least buy a dictionary. An inference is a conclusion, something inferred, a final proposition. An argument is what leads up to it.

[Agent Smith]

Dost thou renounce Satan, and all his works, and all his pomps? Dost thou? Mmmm? Mmmm?

Inference = Argument. A survey of philosophical discourse, written/spoken, will attest to that. However, the former has fallen outta use, philosophers preferring argument; perhaps to then be given an opportunity to disabuse, via explanations like this one, us of a popular and dangerous misconception in re arguments. It doesn't always work, didn't with me, but for some the idea clicks into place and then magic!!

For god's sake, S, at least buy a dictionary. An inference is a conclusion, something inferred, a final proposition. An argument is what leads up to it.

Copy that!

[Harbal]

Hi there. I am currently reading "Philosopher's toolkit" . So, please help me to understand what an argument is.

"An ‘argument’ is an inference from one or more starting points

No it isn't.


I've never heard of Monty Python, btw.

[bahman]

Hi there. I am currently reading "Philosopher's toolkit" . So, please help me to understand what an argument is.

"An ‘argument’ is an inference from one or more starting points (truth claims called a ‘premise’ or ‘premises’) to an end point (a truth claim called a ‘conclusion’). All arguments require an inferential movement of this sort. For this reason, arguments are called discursive"

This is what the book says

Explain me each line in simple terms please. I am not an native english speaker

I thought argument and inference were different things

An argument is a set of statements that explains the truth of something.

[Age]

We all believe that certain things are true.

This is NOT necessarily true at all.

An "argument" simply means, the reasons why we think something is true.

An "inference" is not the same as an "argument". An "inference" is the thing we believe to be true; an "argument" is, the reason for thinking it to be true.

Not sure exactly what else about this might be unclear to you?

Maybe I should mention "axioms". An axiom is an inference which we can't prove - we can't find any argument to support it - but we need to believe it because otherwise knowledge just isn't possible. For example, "0 is a number" can't be proved; there is no argument to support it. But we need to believe it because, if we reject it, the whole science of mathematics falls down.

This here also is NOT necessarily true either.

[Age]

Hi there. I am currently reading "Philosopher's toolkit" . So, please help me to understand what an argument is.

"An ‘argument’ is an inference from one or more starting points (truth claims called a ‘premise’ or ‘premises’) to an end point (a truth claim called a ‘conclusion’). All arguments require an inferential movement of this sort. For this reason, arguments are called discursive"

This is what the book says

Explain me each line in simple terms please. I am not an native english speaker

I thought argument and inference were different things

"Argument" is a general term with a variety of interrelated meanings. I would define it as, "A rational movement from better-known premises to a lesser-known conclusion."

For example, because;
P1. Every action has a reaction. And,
P2. Cause and effect. Then,
C. The Universe, Itself, IS ETERNAL.

. "Inference" is the name usually given to the most basic or atomic rational movements, and in this way we see that an argument is constituted by one or more inferences. Arguments must always move from what is better-known to what is lesser-known, for it is only in this way that rational movement is produced.[1]

Here are two examples of arguments, the first using syllogistic logic and the second using propositional logic:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal

1. If Socrates is a man, then he is mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal

The first example uses syllogistic logic, which works by way of forms. This syllogism is in the first form with the "AII" ("Darii") mood, and since this is a valid form-mood combination the inference is valid. A syllogism is an argument with two premises, one inference, and one conclusion.

The second example uses propositional logic, which works by a series of inferential steps. This argument uses only one inference, "modus ponens."[3]

We could extend the second argument by adding a second inference:

1. If Socrates is a man, then he is mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal
4. If Socrates is incorruptible, then he is immortal
5. Therefore, Socrates is corruptible

In this new argument the conclusion, (5), relies on the two premises of (3) and (4) along the inference rule of modus tollens.[4] The implicit premise for the modus tollens inference is, "Socrates is not immortal," which is a direct consequence of (3).

Generally speaking, arguments are meant to be persuasive or at least to make our own reasoning transparent. So a good philosophical argument will show forth all of the individual premises and inferences our mind makes in arriving at some conclusion. In this way either the conclusion can be proven to be true, or else there will be a perfect opportunity to identify the precise errors that were made in the reasoning process. When we give good arguments we make others susceptible to truth (if the argument is sound) and we make ourselves susceptible to error (if the argument is unsound). Thus good arguments are both persuasive and vulnerable, if we may put it that way. Bad arguments, then, are unpersuasive and invulnerable, usually because they are vague and murky rather than clear and transparent.

----------
1. See Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, Book I, 71b20...
2. See "Syllogism | Logic Museum" and "Categorical Syllogisms."
3. See "Modus Ponens | Wikipedia"
4. See "Modus Tollens | Wikipedia"

[FlashDangerpants]

Hi there. I am currently reading "Philosopher's toolkit" . So, please help me to understand what an argument is.

"An ‘argument’ is an inference from one or more starting points (truth claims called a ‘premise’ or ‘premises’) to an end point (a truth claim called a ‘conclusion’). All arguments require an inferential movement of this sort. For this reason, arguments are called discursive"

This is what the book says

Explain me each line in simple terms please. I am not an native english speaker

I thought argument and inference were different things

I don't think the problem is with the meanings of the words so much as with what they actually signify. People underestimate the importance of the inferential step and that leads to a large number of very poor arguments.

The whole point of a philosophical argument revolves around providing piece of information A, and piece of information B and then asserting that from A and B you can reliably infer a third piece of information C. People are routinely taken in by things which have the cosmetic appearance of doing this, but which don't actually involve an inference to new information, and thus are not actually arguments at all.

An example of that would be the following false syllogism:
A. All batchelors are men.
B. All batchelors are unmarried.
C:. Therefore all bachelors are unmarried men.
We already know by definition that the intersection between the sets of unmarried individuals and individuals who are men is the set of batchelors, so no inference to this tautological knowledge can be valid.

Look around and you will find that the tautological false argument with no inferential step is used often, sometimes they even manage it for untrue arguments. So a regularly seen example is:
A. All murders are killings.
B. All murders are wrongful.
C:. Therefore all murders are wrongful killings (Yay I just proved murder is wrong).
Same as above, the intersection between wrongful and killings is definitive for the set of "murder", and therefore the wrongfulness of murder precedes the existence of any murders.

Sometimes it's unclear whether there is an attempt is to establish an argument at all, or else to reinforce the tautological status of a disputable claim. For examples of that, the wretched Gender sub on this site offers lots of horrifying nonsense along the lines of....
A. All boys are born with <something about chromosomes, something about gametes, or something about dicks and balls>
B. Genders and sexes are the same.
C:. Therefore sex change is impossible/meaningless/blah.
When arguments take this broad form, they wouldn't work as arguments if the premise that gender == sex is true, but the restating of the premise is usually the point rather than the inference to the conclusion.

So, as I hope this makes clear, to qualify as an argument at all, the the arrangement must perform the work of an argument, which is to take the initial pieces of information and provide some explanation for how those validate the inferential move to some new pice of information. It is very common to adopt the cosmetic form of such argument without doing the actual work and for people to not really notice the difference.

[Wizard22]

I don't think the problem is with the meanings of the words so much as with what they actually signify. People underestimate the importance of the inferential step and that leads to a large number of very poor arguments.

The whole point of a philosophical argument revolves around providing piece of information A, and piece of information B and then asserting that from A and B you can reliably infer a third piece of information C. People are routinely taken in by things which have the cosmetic appearance of doing this, but which don't actually involve an inference to new information, and thus are not actually arguments at all.

An example of that would be the following false syllogism:
A. All batchelors are men.
B. All batchelors are unmarried.
C:. Therefore all bachelors are unmarried men.
We already know by definition that the intersection between the sets of unmarried individuals and individuals who are men is the set of batchelors, so no inference to this tautological knowledge can be valid.

Look around and you will find that the tautological false argument with no inferential step is used often, sometimes they even manage it for untrue arguments. So a regularly seen example is:
A. All murders are killings.
B. All murders are wrongful.
C:. Therefore all murders are wrongful killings (Yay I just proved murder is wrong).
Same as above, the intersection between wrongful and killings is definitive for the set of "murder", and therefore the wrongfulness of murder precedes the existence of any murders.

Sometimes it's unclear whether there is an attempt is to establish an argument at all, or else to reinforce the tautological status of a disputable claim. For examples of that, the wretched Gender sub on this site offers lots of horrifying nonsense along the lines of....
A. All boys are born with
B. Genders and sexes are the same.
C:. Therefore sex change is impossible/meaningless/blah.
When arguments take this broad form, they wouldn't work as arguments if the premise that gender == sex is true, but the restating of the premise is usually the point rather than the inference to the conclusion.

So, as I hope this makes clear, to qualify as an argument at all, the the arrangement must perform the work of an argument, which is to take the initial pieces of information and provide some explanation for how those validate the inferential move to some new pice of information. It is very common to adopt the cosmetic form of such argument without doing the actual work and for people to not really notice the difference.

Don't listen to this imbecile, Kal El.

Arguments are based on what people believe, versus oppositional beliefs.

Beliefs must be inferred because there is a limit to how well beliefs can be communicated through any medium.

Rationalization and argumentation occur after you presume the intention of your opposition.

[FlashDangerpants]

lol

[Age]

We all believe that certain things are true.

Here is ABSOLUTE PROOF of WHY some 'things' are BEST NEVER started from what are called 'truths' or 'inferences'. See, 'things' that are ASSUMED or BELIEVED to be true, can all to QUICKLY, SIMPLY, and EASILY be Wrong 'inferred'.

If the word 'we' here was referring to human beings, then this 'INFERRED TRUTH' could NOT be MORE False, MORE Wrong, or MORE Incorrect even if it wanted to be.

NOT ALL believe that certain things are true AT ALL.

In fact ONLY A FOOL would BELIEVE ANY thing to be true.
And, if some thing was ACTUALLY true, then there is NO need to BELIEVE 'it' to be true.
As 'it' JUST IS, true.

An "argument" simply means, the reasons why we think something is true.

And what WILL BE UNCOVERED, and thus DISCOVERED, is that there can be as many DIFFERENT meanings/definitions for a word as there are human beings.

An "inference" is not the same as an "argument". An "inference" is the thing we believe to be true; an "argument" is, the reason for thinking it to be true.[/quote]

So, if this is what 'an argument' is, to you, then what is YOUR 'argument/reason' for thinking this here is true.

To me, an 'argument' is NOT the 'reason for thinking 'it'(whatever) to be true.

Not sure exactly what else about this might be unclear to you?

LOL Do you ENVISION that YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION of what A meaning is, for a word, is the ONLY one, and one that SHOULD be CLEAR to ALL?

Maybe I should mention "axioms". An axiom is an inference which we can't prove - we can't find any argument to support it - but we need to believe it because otherwise knowledge just isn't possible.

This is OBVIOUSLY False, well for some of 'us', as can be ARGUED.

For example, "0 is a number" can't be proved; there is no argument to support it.

AND 0 is a letter, which according to YOUR "logic" can NOT be proved, as absolutely NO argument FOREVER MORE could be made to support it.

BUT, do you HAVE an argument to back up, support, AND PROVE this CLAIM of YOURS here?

But we need to believe it because, if we reject it, the whole science of mathematics falls down.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here is the PRIME EXAMPLE of WHY this one BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that EVERYONE has absolutely NO CHOICE but to BELIEVE 'certain things' ARE TRUE.

[FlashDangerpants]

Here's an example from the Religion sub that shows how easy it is to get swept up by the apparent form of an argument but to completely misunderstand the inferrential step at the end of the process. In this case, a false syllogism is presented, and then an attempt is made to fix it, but that also provides a false syllogism.

I am using critical thinking, logic and rationality.
I had argued what is most real is confined to the scientific FSK.

• 1. What exist as most real is verifiable by the scientific FSR-FSK.
  2. God and soul are not dealt within the ambit of the credible FSK-FSK.
  3. Therefore, it is impossible for God and soul to exists as real.

Btw, do you have a problem with the validity and understanding [not necessary agree with] the above arguments based on what we have discussed so far.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2023 10:33 am

Yes, I have problems with 1 and 2.

I understand you do not agree with 1 and 2, thus from your perspective is not sound.

But do agree the syllogism is valid deductively whilst not sound nor true to you.
'Valid' deductively means following the rules of logic but not necessary true, thus can be GIGO.

No, the argument is not valid either. It should be like this:

1. What exists as most real is verifiable by the scientific FSK.
2. God and soul are not real within the ambit of the credible FSK.
3. Therefore, it is impossible for God and the soul to be real.

The simplest way of teaching this error is typically to just say that the premises can be true while the conclusion remains false, and for that you may simply point to premise 2 of both versions of the argument and say "hasn't yet". Or you might look for whatever this "most real" thing is supposed to be concealing in the original and point out how weird it would be to have "most real" also in the conclusion.

But when you put it that way, people tend not to pick up on the importance of the matter. The human mind is often a summarising engine, we apply heuristics whenever the current situation looks familiar, so it is easy to put one of these ersatz arguments in front of us and for the inattentive to just assume it is valid because it has the cosmetic structure of a normal argument. Even in this weird case where the whole thing is constructed out of pure lumps of meaningless tripe and doesn't even resemble a workable argument.

That's why we must always be on guard and watching for the quality of that final inferrential step in any argument.