Trudy Govier, University of Lethbridge<\/p>\n
Arguments are often with sequential reasons, each not individually sufficient for the conclusion. They often include counter-considerations. These are balance of consideration<\/strong> arguments<\/strong>. <\/p>\n The conclusion is supposed to be supported in an inductive form. The commitment is supposed to be that the supporting considerations outweigh the counter-considerations. Counter-considerations are part of an arguer's case, but objections are not. Often overtly considering the counter-considerations signals that the reasoner is not rigid or dogmatic.<\/p>\n Pro-con argumentaton is usually dialectical, the model is often a stand in for adversarial argumentation.<\/p>\n Some pragmatics of how counter-considerations are introduced and aknowledged:<\/p>\n "Even though" introduces a less emphasized clause. E.g., He is a good teacher even though he has a speech impediment. The first one gets the emphasis. Others: "although" "despite"<\/p>\n "But" introduces a more emphasized clause. E.g., She is a good teacher but she has a speech impediment. The second one gets the emphasis. Others: "However" "Nevertheless"<\/p>\n Model 1<\/strong> (from Hansen):<\/p>\n P1, P2, P3…Pn.(with addition of on-balance-premise OBP) K even though CC1, CC2. . . CCn<\/p>\n The trouble is that the OBP is effectively the model used as a premise Model 3<\/strong> (Hansen, breaking the stages)<\/p>\n P1, P2,…. Even though CC1, CC2, …. CCn, K K<\/p>\n Figure 4<\/strong> (From Govier's Practical Study of Argument<\/em>)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n P1 P2 P3 P4 CC1 CC2<\/p>\n supports (line) does not support (squiggle line)<\/p>\n K<\/p>\n Figure 5<\/strong> (with shunting form)<\/p>\n INSERT<\/p>\n Figure 6<\/strong> (Govier's 2011 model)<\/p>\n INSERT<\/p>\n Q1: Do we need to revise our notion of arguments constituting the collection of two sets of claims – premises and conclusions? Including counter-considerations seems to be a third set. Perhaps one set can be put forward as the supporting set, but individual members of the set may themselves not be supporting the conclusion.<\/p>\n Q2: Do on-balance arguments need to use a suppressed on-balance premise? Ceteris paribus arguments work like this.<\/p>\n Q3: How does one weigh these reasons?<\/p>\n Q4: Don't we often give reasons for why we don't get the counter-considerations to move us?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Trudy Govier, University of Lethbridge Arguments are often with sequential reasons, each not individually sufficient for the conclusion. They often include counter-considerations. These are balance of consideration arguments. The conclusion is supposed to be supported in an inductive form. The commitment is supposed to be that the supporting considerations outweigh the counter-considerations. Counter-considerations are part … Continue reading OSSA Day 3: Reasoning about counterconsiderations<\/span>
\n\t<\/u><\/p>\n
\n\t <\/p>\n
\n\t<\/u><\/p>\n
\n\t<\/u><\/p>\n