|
Because How to Analyze and Evaluate Ordinary Reasoning Section 7 Analyzing Arguments and Explanations |
G. Randolph Mayes Department of Philosophy Sacramento State University |
|
7.1 Argument questions and explanation questions
We noted in section 5 that one way to identify arguments and explanations is by reference to the different kinds of questions these forms of reasoning are intended to answer. Let's elaborate on that a bit.
You know that the purpose of an argument is to provide evidence for some claim. Evidence for a claim is a rational basis for believing that claim. A typical request for evidence, then, may be expressed as the question:
But there are many other ways of asking for evidence. For example (letting C stand for the conclusion):
What all these questions have in common is that they express a skeptical stance. The person asking them either doubts or disbelieves what has been said, and needs some reason for accepting it as true.
You also know that the purpose of an explanation is to provide a cause of some fact. We provide causes when we are attempting to understand how or why something is the case. A typical request for a cause is:
Again, there are many different ways of asking for a cause.
What these questions all have in common is that they presume the truth of C, but they indicate some kind of surprise that C occurs along with a desire for some rational basis for understanding why it occurs.
The term surprise here can be a little misleading. We often ask for explanations of facts that do not actually surprise us because we are so used to them. For example, you know that the night sky is dark but you may not know why the night sky is dark. (It's actually a very interesting explanation.) The fact that the night sky is dark can only be made surprising if you adopt a particular point of view, in this case knowing that there are enough stars in the universe to flood the earth with light on a continuous basis. Scientific and philosophical inquiry depends on our ability to adopts points of view that make familiar facts surprising.
Notice, btw, that the questions How do you know? and Why is that so? rhyme. This might help you to remember the difference between arguments questions and explanation questions more easily.
7.2 Testing your rationales by talking to them
When analyzing reasoning it is really easy to lose touch with your intuitions about what a reason sounds like, be it causal or evidential in nature. The best way to prevent that is to test your rationales by talking out loud to them. If you identify a rational as an argument, you should ask the conclusion an argument question and determine whether there is a reason given that provides a clear answer to that question. Similarly, for explanation. If you are constructing a branching or chaining rationale, then you should repeat this question until you come to the end of the rationale. Consider an example:
Suppose you analyzed this reasoning as follows:
Now you can test this analysis by asking it argument questions as follows:
Clearly, this last response is weird. In what sense is the fact that Olaf has a weight problem evidence that he eats at Taco Bell? It seems to be evidence that Olaf overeats, but not evidence that he overeats somewhere in particular. So suppose you go back to the drawing board and come up with this reconstruction instead:
Now you can submit this reasoning to a series of explanation questions.
This reconstruction definitely makes a lot more sense. It may still be a little peculiar to cite Taco Bell specifically as the cause of a weight problem, but it's not incomprehensible.
Recall, however, that there is still one more step in the process of reconstruction, and that is to ask whether it makes sense of what the speaker has actually said. If you look at the original statement, it seems clear that there really was something correct about the original argument analysis. That is, the speaker really does seem to be attempting to convince us that Olaf loves Taco Bell. Is there any reconstruction that makes sense of this? Yes. As in our Batman example from chapter 6, it turns out the speaker is just arguing and explaining at the same time. The reconstruction that best survives both tests is:
Conversationally:
7.2 Analysis as mind reading
The ability to properly analyze argument and explanations requires a slightly more subtle grasp of these concepts then we have developed so far. Essentially we need to understand that whenever we try to reconstruct the reasoning of others, our aim is to represent as accurately as possible what they are saying, and this means working with any assumptions that they appear to be making. To see how this comes up in the context of determining whether someone is arguing or explaining, consider the following:
Now, before you decide whether this is an argument of an explanation, here is an additional piece of information: Serena is wrong. The fact is that Blake actually won his match. So, is this now an argument or an explanation? It certainly sounds like an explanation of the fact that Blake lost his match. What's confusing is that it's not a fact that Blake lost his match. So how could it be an explanation? Perhaps we should say it is just Serena's opinion that Blake lost his match and characterize this as an argument because we are skeptical of the conclusion?
No. This is an explanation of the fact that Blake lost his match, even though there is no such fact. That's because when we analyze the reasoning of others we are not in the position of determining what the facts actually are, but what the author of the reasoning is actually assuming the facts to be. Serena clearly believes it to be a fact that Blake lost the match. Hence, she is properly interpreted as explaining why Blake lost the match as follows:
We are not criticizing reasoning yet, but if we were to be critical of this reasoning, we would just say that Serena is offering an explanation of something that did not actually occur. But in order to make this criticism, we must first correctly identify the reasoning as explanatory in nature.
A similar kind of problem arises in the case of argument. For example, suppose that your chemistry textbook is missing and after looking all over for it you ask your friend Frieda if she has seen it anywhere. Frieda says:
Is this defensive response an argument or an explanation? On the one hand, it seems clear that she is trying to convince you that she didn't take your book. On the other hand, you never meant to suggest that she had taken the book; you were just wondering if she had seen it. In this case, it is very weird for her to be trying to convince you of a conclusion that you already fully accept. Nevertheless, that is exactly what she is doing, and hence the reasoning should still be analyzed as an argument.
Again, if we were to be critical of the reasoning we would say that Frieda is arguing for a conclusion that we already accept as a fact. But, again, in order to make this criticism we must first have identified the reasoning as argumentative in nature.
In summary: people often give reasoning that is based on incorrect assumptions. But we do not evaluate the truth and falsity of their assumptions in determining whether to reconstruct it as an argument or an explanation.
|
|
