What counts as an argument?

madmatt621 · 06-27-2007, 04:29 PM

I had an interesting conversation with a skeptical friend the other day. We were talking about arguments (in the scientific sense of the word) their structure, form, and what counts as good and poor reasoning.

He made a statement to me that I would like to share and invite comment on. Now, he said to me something like

"Any non-viable reason recruited to support an argument, automatically makes it a non-argument. By definition when we say a reason is needed to support a conclusion, we mean a viable reason - only these will do. If the reason given is not viable it does not count as an argument at all (in the scientific sense of the word). Therefore, the argument can be legitimately ignored"

I only half-agree. If this was literally true there would be no such thing as a fallacious argument - indeed it would be an oxymoron or contradiction. The moment the argument becomes fallacious - it ceases to be an argument. In addition I do not think you can ignore the argument - because the conlcusion could be true for other reasons not given. His ideas might be nice in theory (though I dont think they are), but in practice they break down.

Also, in the context of education, I dont think anyone would learn anything by having their "arguments" ignored - I find this reaction a bit extreme. Of course, not all ideas are equal, but it is always important to know why that is and to highlight that in the discussion.

What do others think here? Is it just semantics, or can anyone see the conceptual difference between our positions. Maybe its me.....I was more than a little...errr..shall we say

Poor reasons = poor arguments dont they?
or do poor reasons = unsupported statements?

06-27-2007, 04:29 PM	#1
madmatt621 Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: 29°34′7″N, 95°1′21″W Age: 37 Posts: 3,000	What counts as an argument? I had an interesting conversation with a skeptical friend the other day. We were talking about arguments (in the scientific sense of the word) their structure, form, and what counts as good and poor reasoning. He made a statement to me that I would like to share and invite comment on. Now, he said to me something like "Any non-viable reason recruited to support an argument, automatically makes it a non-argument. By definition when we say a reason is needed to support a conclusion, we mean a viable reason - only these will do. If the reason given is not viable it does not count as an argument at all (in the scientific sense of the word). Therefore, the argument can be legitimately ignored" I only half-agree. If this was literally true there would be no such thing as a fallacious argument - indeed it would be an oxymoron or contradiction. The moment the argument becomes fallacious - it ceases to be an argument. In addition I do not think you can ignore the argument - because the conlcusion could be true for other reasons not given. His ideas might be nice in theory (though I dont think they are), but in practice they break down. Also, in the context of education, I dont think anyone would learn anything by having their "arguments" ignored - I find this reaction a bit extreme. Of course, not all ideas are equal, but it is always important to know why that is and to highlight that in the discussion. What do others think here? Is it just semantics, or can anyone see the conceptual difference between our positions. Maybe its me.....I was more than a little...errr..shall we say Poor reasons = poor arguments dont they? or do poor reasons = unsupported statements?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)