Assessing arguments

Assessing arguments

1. Critical approch

   • Check if quality criteria is fulfilled:
     • (1) Premises must be acceptable - true
       • (2) Logical strength:
         • (2.1) Relevance: The premises must provide support for the conclusion
           • (2.2) Adequacy: The premises must provide sufficient support for the conclusion
     • Example:
       • (1) Identify conclusion
         • (2) Indentify premises
           • (3) Identify structure
             • Reconstructing arguments
             • P = C | P + P = C | P = C and P = C
             • (4) Check accepability
               • (5) Check relevance
                 • Does premises support conclusion at all?
                 • (6) Check adequcy
                   • How much support does the conclusion gets from the premises?
                   • (7) Look fpr counter-arguments
                     • Try to assess the total balance of pro and cons
                       • Many and good counter-arguments = low adequacy
                       • Few/noen and week counter-arguments = High adequacy
               • premises true?

2. Fallacy approch

   • Check for misstakes in the argument - if no mistakes is found, it is probaly sound
     • Problem:
       • No criteria for what makes a good argument
       • There are "infinite" list of fallacies to consider
     • Non sequitur: Premissene er ikke relevante for konklusjonen
     • Appeal to pitty
     • Appeal to force: threath within the argument
     • Appeal to popularity
     • Appeal to authority
     • Ad hominem: atack person insted of argument
     • Tu quoque(you too): Respond to ad hominem with accusing this person for the same
     • Straw men
     • Slippery slope: Conclusion is supported by a CHAIN of everal predictions. if one prediction in the CHAIN is unsurten, the conclusion is unserten