OSSA Day 3: Patterson on Arguments

Steven Patterson, “Are Arguments Abstract Objects?”

A standard story:  (p, q) is an argument iff (i) S intends for q to be inferred from p, and (ii) q and p are related by an inference rule.

Some counter-examples: #1: late for the movie: S has p (S is sick, and if sick will miss the movie), S doesn’t intend to infer that q (late).  #2: Pancake: S intends to infer q from p (pancakes today from helium is light), but it doesn’t follow.
#3. Snowy day: S intends to infer q from p, but there aren’t rules of inference in the midst of the two?

The analogical argument: Arguments are like musical compositions

-both are human productions

– there are individual works, but with identity-conditions

-but, these identity conditions are hard…

-understanding/appreciating requires training

-multiple conditions, can bilocate

– occur w/in contexts & have histories for development

Open concepts- don’t have necessary and sufficient conditions, but do have boundaries.  E.g.,  continuum from the Socrates syllogism, to the ontological argument, to the ‘you’ve got to be kidding me response to arguments, to imagistic & physical arguments.