Snar edited this post 2 years, 5 months ago. Read the previous text »
The difference between statements an arguments:
Statement:
Socrates was mortal.
Argument:
1) Socrates was a man
2) All men are mortal
3) Therefore socrates was mortal
Seeing as how we often have discussions that turn into debate-ish things, I really think its important that people realize the difference. An argument is a structured set of statements supporting a conclusion.
I won’t get into the other rules of argumentation but I hope that people can learn from this simple example how there is a difference between postulation and assertion…and actually supporting a claim with a set of premises.
Anyone can make statements. The reason why statements can seem like arguments sometimes is because they appeal to our intuition. Statements that appeal to our intuition are still not arguments, watch:
Statement: Happiness is good.
Statement: I am superman.
Statement: I live in Canada
Statement: I am the incarnation of Jesus Christ put into the body of Optimus Prime
Somehow I think people will see this as pretty pompous.
linuxya wrote:
Somehow I think people will see this as pretty pompous.
Whether or not its pompous, there is a reason why argumentation is the way that it is. To weed out logically inconsistent statements and conclusions.
I’d gladly sound pompous if it can show even one person that there is a difference between intuitive and logical reasoning. It saddens me greatly that something this basic isn’t in the highschool curriculum.
What about a statement->analogy or statement->example argument?
The argumentation you posted assumes that your two your founding statements are true.
What is Socrates was NOT a man? What is not all men are mortal?
To have a successful argument you must have founding statements that people assume are correct.
If you can’t do this, then you present a similar situation that they should understand better.
Cabiano wrote:
What about a statement->analogy or statement->example argument?
The argumentation you posted assumes that your two your founding statements are true.
What is Socrates was NOT a man? What is not all men are mortal?
To have a successful argument you must have founding statements that people assume are correct.
If you can’t do this, then you present a similar situation that they should understand better.
Ah! But I wasn’t saying that my arguments were successfull, valid, or sound.
I didn’t want to get into this because my post was already long. But to judge the success of an argument we look at soundness and validity. Validity is if the premises lead up to the conclusion. Does the conclusion follow from the premises? Then it is valid. If not, it is invalid.
Soundness is juding if the argument is valid AND if the statements (premises) are true.
These are the two common cited methods for judging an arguments success.
You see an argument isn’t defined by success, it is defined by structure. It IS an argument to say that:
1) Everything in the bible is true
2) The Bible says god exists
3) Therefore god exists.
This is however a bad argument. It is valid, but it is unsound because premise one is CRAZY!
Snar wrote:
Cabiano wrote:
What about a statement->analogy or statement->example argument?
The argumentation you posted assumes that your two your founding statements are true.
What is Socrates was NOT a man? What is not all men are mortal?
To have a successful argument you must have founding statements that people assume are correct.
If you can’t do this, then you present a similar situation that they should understand better.
Ah! But I wasn’t saying that my arguments were successfull, valid, or sound.
I didn’t want to get into this because my post was already long. But to judge the success of an argument we look at soundness and validity. Validity is if the premises lead up to the conclusion. Does the conclusion follow from the premises? Then it is valid. If not, it is invalid.
Soundness is juding if the argument is valid AND if the statements (premises) are true.
These are the two common cited methods for judging an arguments success.
You see an argument isn’t defined by success, it is defined by structure. It IS an argument to say that:
1) Everything in the bible is true
2) The Bible says god exists
3) Therefore god exists.
This is however a bad argument. It is valid, but it is unsound because premise one is CRAZY!
Good point. An argument is an argument regardless of the truthfulness or logic of the evidence.
As for your specific argument example, you feel that statement one is crazy, while others would feel it is perfectly true and has been tested multiple times in different ways.
It is best to avoid personal slams when arguing, because then the opposing party will no longer care if your argument is sound, they will only care about winning the argument. (and most people are opposed to having their philosophies called crazy)
Cabiano wrote:
Snar wrote:
Cabiano wrote:
What about a statement->analogy or statement->example argument?
The argumentation you posted assumes that your two your founding statements are true.
What is Socrates was NOT a man? What is not all men are mortal?
To have a successful argument you must have founding statements that people assume are correct.
If you can’t do this, then you present a similar situation that they should understand better.
Ah! But I wasn’t saying that my arguments were successfull, valid, or sound.
I didn’t want to get into this because my post was already long. But to judge the success of an argument we look at soundness and validity. Validity is if the premises lead up to the conclusion. Does the conclusion follow from the premises? Then it is valid. If not, it is invalid.
Soundness is juding if the argument is valid AND if the statements (premises) are true.
These are the two common cited methods for judging an arguments success.
You see an argument isn’t defined by success, it is defined by structure. It IS an argument to say that:
1) Everything in the bible is true
2) The Bible says god exists
3) Therefore god exists.
This is however a bad argument. It is valid, but it is unsound because premise one is CRAZY!
Good point. An argument is an argument regardless of the truthfulness or logic of the evidence.
As for your specific argument example, you feel that statement one is crazy, while others would feel it is perfectly true and has been tested multiple times in different ways.
It is best to avoid personal slams when arguing, because then the opposing party will no longer care if your argument is sound, they will only care about winning the argument. (and most people are opposed to having their philosophies called crazy)
This is true, it is not a counter argument to say “the bible is crazy”.
It is a counter-argument to provide a counter-example to show the inconsistency and absurdity of considering a book of stories as true simply by virtue of its existence:
Counter-example to the bible-hypothesis:
1) Everything written in harry potter is true
2) Harry potter says Voldemort exists
3) Therefore Voldemort exists.
Because this has the exact same reasoning, yet is intuitively discounted by almost everyone it shows the flaw in the assumption of premise one.
Snar wrote:
Cabiano wrote:
Snar wrote:
Cabiano wrote:
What about a statement->analogy or statement->example argument?
The argumentation you posted assumes that your two your founding statements are true.
What is Socrates was NOT a man? What is not all men are mortal?
To have a successful argument you must have founding statements that people assume are correct.
If you can’t do this, then you present a similar situation that they should understand better.
Ah! But I wasn’t saying that my arguments were successfull, valid, or sound.
I didn’t want to get into this because my post was already long. But to judge the success of an argument we look at soundness and validity. Validity is if the premises lead up to the conclusion. Does the conclusion follow from the premises? Then it is valid. If not, it is invalid.
Soundness is juding if the argument is valid AND if the statements (premises) are true.
These are the two common cited methods for judging an arguments success.
You see an argument isn’t defined by success, it is defined by structure. It IS an argument to say that:
1) Everything in the bible is true
2) The Bible says god exists
3) Therefore god exists.
This is however a bad argument. It is valid, but it is unsound because premise one is CRAZY!
Good point. An argument is an argument regardless of the truthfulness or logic of the evidence.
As for your specific argument example, you feel that statement one is crazy, while others would feel it is perfectly true and has been tested multiple times in different ways.
It is best to avoid personal slams when arguing, because then the opposing party will no longer care if your argument is sound, they will only care about winning the argument. (and most people are opposed to having their philosophies called crazy)
This is true, it is not a counter argument to say “the bible is crazy”.
It is a counter-argument to provide a counter-example to show the inconsistency and absurdity of considering a book of stories as true simply by virtue of its existence:
Counter-example to the bible-hypothesis:
1) Everything written in harry potter is true
2) Harry potter says Voldemort exists
3) Therefore Voldemort exists.
Because this has the exact same reasoning, yet is intuitively discounted by almost everyone it shows the flaw in the assumption of premise one.
I’m sure there are people who wholeheartedly agree that your Harry Potter argument is sound.
The bible is also a different matter, because
a) it doesn’t have a specific author who can attest to its validity
b) it contains valid historical information
c) it contains life principles that people can try for themselves and decide if they are valid.
Cabiano wrote:
Snar wrote:
Cabiano wrote:
Snar wrote:
Cabiano wrote:
What about a statement->analogy or statement->example argument?
The argumentation you posted assumes that your two your founding statements are true.
What is Socrates was NOT a man? What is not all men are mortal?
To have a successful argument you must have founding statements that people assume are correct.
If you can’t do this, then you present a similar situation that they should understand better.
Ah! But I wasn’t saying that my arguments were successfull, valid, or sound.
I didn’t want to get into this because my post was already long. But to judge the success of an argument we look at soundness and validity. Validity is if the premises lead up to the conclusion. Does the conclusion follow from the premises? Then it is valid. If not, it is invalid.
Soundness is juding if the argument is valid AND if the statements (premises) are true.
These are the two common cited methods for judging an arguments success.
You see an argument isn’t defined by success, it is defined by structure. It IS an argument to say that:
1) Everything in the bible is true
2) The Bible says god exists
3) Therefore god exists.
This is however a bad argument. It is valid, but it is unsound because premise one is CRAZY!
Good point. An argument is an argument regardless of the truthfulness or logic of the evidence.
As for your specific argument example, you feel that statement one is crazy, while others would feel it is perfectly true and has been tested multiple times in different ways.
It is best to avoid personal slams when arguing, because then the opposing party will no longer care if your argument is sound, they will only care about winning the argument. (and most people are opposed to having their philosophies called crazy)
This is true, it is not a counter argument to say “the bible is crazy”.
It is a counter-argument to provide a counter-example to show the inconsistency and absurdity of considering a book of stories as true simply by virtue of its existence:
Counter-example to the bible-hypothesis:
1) Everything written in harry potter is true
2) Harry potter says Voldemort exists
3) Therefore Voldemort exists.
Because this has the exact same reasoning, yet is intuitively discounted by almost everyone it shows the flaw in the assumption of premise one.
I’m sure there are people who wholeheartedly agree that your Harry Potter argument is sound.
The bible is also a different matter, because
a) it doesn’t have a specific author who can attest to its validity
b) it contains valid historical information
c) it contains life principles that people can try for themselves and decide if they are valid.
Yep.
Snar wrote:
Yep.
Is this more of a “you’re crazy I’m not even going to try” or a “yes, that’s true”?
At any rate, it’s a rather abrupt conclusion to our argument.
Random though while re-reading this post:
Harry potter also says Voldemort dies
Death removes earthly cognition and influence, therefore removing existence
Voldemort does not exist (currently)
Cabiano wrote:
Snar wrote:
Yep.
Is this more of a “you’re crazy I’m not even going to try” or a “yes, that’s true”?
At any rate, it’s a rather abrupt conclusion to our argument.
Random though while re-reading this post:
Harry potter also says Voldemort dies
Death removes earthly cognition and influence, therefore removing existence
Voldemort does not exist (currently)
Haha well cabiano I agree with all your arguments, and my point here wasn’t a debate about theology or an examination of what is a sound counterargument. I just want to raise awareness about the fact that statements and arguments are not the same!
Snar wrote:
Cabiano wrote:
Snar wrote:
Yep.
Is this more of a “you’re crazy I’m not even going to try” or a “yes, that’s true”?
At any rate, it’s a rather abrupt conclusion to our argument.
Random though while re-reading this post:
Harry potter also says Voldemort dies
Death removes earthly cognition and influence, therefore removing existence
Voldemort does not exist (currently)
Haha well cabiano I agree with all your arguments, and my point here wasn’t a debate about theology or an examination of what is a sound counterargument. I just want to raise awareness about the fact that statements and arguments are not the same!
haha. True. I was getting off topic. I’m sorry.
And I agree with your post. A statement without backing is no argument at all.
Cabiano wrote:
Snar wrote:
Cabiano wrote:
Snar wrote:
Yep.
Is this more of a “you’re crazy I’m not even going to try” or a “yes, that’s true”?
At any rate, it’s a rather abrupt conclusion to our argument.
Random though while re-reading this post:
Harry potter also says Voldemort dies
Death removes earthly cognition and influence, therefore removing existence
Voldemort does not exist (currently)
Haha well cabiano I agree with all your arguments, and my point here wasn’t a debate about theology or an examination of what is a sound counterargument. I just want to raise awareness about the fact that statements and arguments are not the same!
haha. True. I was getting off topic. I’m sorry.
And I agree with your post. A statement without backing is no argument at all.
It is quite alright! I provided a bad example and you called me out, keeps me on my toes…and that is good.
1) Socrates was a man
2) All men are mortal
3) Therefore socrates was mortal
I swear I have heard this 8 times in my life. Is this some official example?
Anyway, the most interesting thing is that postmodernism has made the perspective on our society so convoluted that a “statement” like Socrates was mortal is viewed as equal part factual as assumed.
It is the presence of idiots that makes arguments abundant. The latter sentence may not be a statement, but to some it would appear so. Hence any fool will read within a sentence whatever it is they seek.
Therefore: Haters be hatin.
J.
Jerry wrote:
1) Socrates was a man
2) All men are mortal
3) Therefore socrates was mortal
I swear I have heard this 8 times in my life. Is this some official example?
Anyway, the most interesting thing is that postmodernism has made the perspective on our society so convoluted that a “statement” like Socrates was mortal is viewed as equal part factual as assumed.
It is the presence of idiots that makes arguments abundant. The latter sentence may not be a statement, but to some it would appear so. Hence any fool will read within a sentence whatever it is they seek.
Therefore: Haters be hatin.
J.
It kind of is, trust me, so have I. It is the standard philosophical example we all are taught. Why? Who knows. Probably because Socrates ******* rocks.
Snar wrote:
Statement: I am the incarnation of Jesus Christ put into the body of Optimus Prime
Crazy but AWESOME….well no, Jesus would make optimus pretty boring…
but optimus prime in the body of jesus would be hilarious. ;)
iam0zy wrote:
Snar wrote:
Statement: I am the incarnation of Jesus Christ put into the body of Optimus Prime
Crazy but AWESOME….well no, Jesus would make optimus pretty boring…
but optimus prime in the body of jesus would be hilarious. ;)
Haha well I do agree. And I’d convert right away I must say.
anniejones34
linuxya
Tock
Jerry
Dr. Ozy