How To Construct Arguments - 1.1

Philosophy Training How to Construct Arguments Version 1.1. Modified 5/24/09.

How to Construct Arguments Contents – – – – –

Step Step Step Step Step

1: 2: 3: 4: 5:

Select a claim you believe and want to argue for. Discern your reason for believing that claim. Turn that reason into a full argument. Assess and revise the argument. Get feedback from other people.

–

An example: arguing for the existence of God

–

The rationale for this method

Step 1: Select a claim you believe and want to argue for. Look through your beliefs. Pick one of your beliefs that you want to argue for. That will be your conclusion.

Step 2: Discern your reason for believing that claim. Take your conclusion and ask yourself: “What is my reason for believing this?” This about this until either: (a) you can state explicitly what your reason is, or (b)you realize that you don’t have a reason. If you can state explicitly what your reason is, go on to step 3. If you don’t have a reason, see whether you stop believing the claim in question. If you don’t stop believing it, repeat this step. Dig deeper. See whether you have any reason at all for believing your claim. If you do stop believing the claim, go back to step 1 and pick a different claim. If after several repetitions you still believe the claim but can’t find any reason, go back to step 1 and pick a different claim.

1

Philosophy Training How to Construct Arguments Version 1.1. Modified 5/24/09.

Step 3: Turn that reason into a full argument. The reason you found in step 2 is a nascent argument. Now, turn it into a full argument. Write down the conclusion. Write down the main claims contained in your reason. Work that reason into a full-fledged numbered argument.

Step 4: Assess and revise the argument. Now, assess your argument and revise it accordingly. Is it valid? If not, add premises to fill the gaps. Are the premises good? If not, either argue for those premises or replace them with better premises.

Step 5: Get feedback from other people. Once your argument is good enough, get some feedback from other people. Talk to people, perhaps try to convince them of your conclusion using your argument. Don’t argue endlessly – just argue for as long as it takes to get the feedback you’re looking for. It’s fine to get feedback from non-philosophers as well as philosophers. Repeat steps 4 and 5 as many times as seems useful. If you decide your general line of argument won’t work, go back to step 2 and look for another one. If you run out of ideas entirely or ceasing believing the claim you’re trying to argue for, go back to step 1 and select and different claim.

An example: Arguing for the existence of God Here’s an example. –––––––– Step 1. Scott wants to argue about the existence of God. He considers what he believes on the topic and concludes that he believes that God exists. So he selects the claim “God exists” as the claim he’s going to argue for. That’s step 1. –––––––– 2

Philosophy Training How to Construct Arguments Version 1.1. Modified 5/24/09.

Step 2. Next, Scott asks himself: “What is my reason for believing that God exists?” He first thinks: “I learned about God when I was young and when I was young I pretty much believed whatever I was told.” But this isn’t what Scott is looking for. It might be that Scott is right – it might be that the historical cause of his belief was his youthful credulity. But the point here isn’t to look for historical causes. It’s to look for a reason – for justification. So Scott asks himself again: “What is my reason for believing that God exists?” This time he gives the right sort of answer: “I believe that God exists because that’s what the Bible says, and I trust the Bible.” Now Scott has a nascent argument for his belief – that’s step 2. –––––––– Step 3. Next, Scott needs to turn his nascent, beginning argument into a full-fledged argument. First, he writes down his conclusion, adding a “Therefore, …” in front of it to indicate that it’s a conclusion: Therefore, God exists. Then Scott writes down the main claims from his nascent argument above his conclusion: The Bible says that God exists. I trust the Bible. Therefore, God exists. Scott considers whether this argument represents his thoughts on the matter and concludes that it does. He numbers the claims and now has a full-fledged argument for his belief. That’s step 3. –––––––– Step 4. Next, Scott gets to work revising and improving his argument. He asks himself: “Is the argument valid?” No, he decides. It could be that the Bible says that God exists and that he trusts the Bible, but that the Bible is false. So his conclusion doesn’t follow from his premises. After a bit of thought, he changes the argument: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The Bible says “God exists.” Everything the Bible says is true. Therefore, “God exists” is true. If “God exists” is true, then God exists. Therefore, God exists. 3

Philosophy Training How to Construct Arguments Version 1.1. Modified 5/24/09.

Scott considers the new argument and decides (correctly) that it is valid. Next, heasks himself: “Are my premises good?” He thinks a little and concludes: “Premise 1 is solid. Premise 4 is solid. Premise 2, however, is not so good. People will disagree with it, and it is the sort of claim that would have to be known by an argument.” So then he reformulates the argument again, this time including an argument for what was his second premise. 1. The Bible says “God exists.” 2. Over one billion people believe that everything the Bible says is true. 3. One billion people can’t be wrong. 4. Therefore, everything the Bible says is true. 5. Therefore, “God exists” is true. 6. If “God exists” is true, then God exists. 7. Therefore, God exists. Scott might continue reformulating and improving his argument. When he’s done, he’s done step 4. –––––––– Step 5. Now that Scott has his argument, he talks to people and gets some feedback. Usefully, someone points out that over one billion people believe that not everything the Bible says is true. Scott realizes that this means that premise 3 can’t be right. –––––––– Repetition. After Scott realizes that his third premise is false he goes back to step 4 and reformulates his argument again. He repeats steps 4 and 5 until he believes he has a good argument. If he finds that he can’t make his general line of approach work, he goes back to step 2 and tries to develop another one. If he finds that no line of approach works, or if he finds that he no longer believes the claim he’s arguing for, he goes back to step 1 and selects another claim.

The rationale for this method To be filled in. –

– –

It is natural to think you should start with premises. Starting with premises does not work. Try it. It doesn’t work. Instead, we start with our conclusion.

4

Philosophy Training How to Construct Arguments Version 1.1. Modified 5/24/09. – This is not dogmatism. Dogmatism is irrational commitment to a conclusion. You can start with conclusions, build, then conclude the conclusion is wrong and change your beliefs. – Why you should believe the claim – so that you can come up with arguments for it. ○ People are bad at coming up with arguments for things they don’t believe.

5