Geoff Goddu, “Why I Still Do Not Know What A ‘Real’ Argument Is”<\/p>\n
Consider the old saw for syllogisms:<\/p>\n
Socrates is a man, and All men are mortal; therefore, Socrates is mortal.<\/p>\n
It’s regularly claimed that this is not a real<\/em> argument, and so is pointless to use as teaching tools.\u00c2\u00a0 So what’s a real <\/em>argument?<\/p>\n C.Hamby’s criteria for real arguments amounts to: matter of judgment, is substantial, is relevant, is controversial, matters, is non-trivial, is prospectively used, is practical.\u00c2\u00a0 So the realness<\/em> of arguments depend on subject-interests.<\/p>\n Goddu’s counter-examples.\u00c2\u00a0 With the Socrates syllogism above, imagine someone giving this as a reply to Socrates’ case for the immortality of the soul.\u00c2\u00a0 That’s a real argument.<\/p>\n Other cases:\u00c2\u00a0 (A1):\u00c2\u00a0 some arguments are composed solely of existential generalizations, so some arguments are composed solely of existential generalizations;\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 (A2) Petunias prance proudly past the pool, so some ‘unreal’ arguments have absurd premises.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 (A3) Lemons are red, so the moon is made of blue cheese.\u00c2\u00a0 These are all cases where we could, like with the Socrates case, tell a story of how someone could be interested in the arguments.\u00c2\u00a0 So they can be ‘real’ arguments.<\/p>\n The class of non-real arguments, then, is, at least by its nature, empty.\u00c2\u00a0 Our lack of interest puts things in there – but that’s not about the arguments, but about us.<\/p>\n Moreover, there’s a self-refutation argument.\u00c2\u00a0 Here’s how it goes: If you claim that X is not a real argument, that’s a matter of interest to us, so now we have it being a real argument.<\/p>\n Hamby’s reply (which is awesome that the target for criticism was at the session!):\u00c2\u00a0 why does the fact that ‘real’ is a matter of indexing to subject interest make the notion of ‘real’ and ‘unreal’ not a useful part of your ontology of arguments?\u00c2\u00a0 Surely that’s an important element of pedagogy– we want to teach arguments that make a difference in their lives and our lives.<\/p>\n Q: Doesn’t the self-refuation argument confuse use and mention for argument X?\u00c2\u00a0 For the argument to go through, we must use X, but in the form presented, it’s mention-only.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Geoff Goddu, “Why I Still Do Not Know What A ‘Real’ Argument Is” Consider the old saw for syllogisms: Socrates is a man, and All men are mortal; therefore, Socrates is mortal. It’s regularly claimed that this is not a real argument, and so is pointless to use as teaching tools.\u00c2\u00a0 So what’s a real … Continue reading OSSA Day 2: Goddu on ‘Real’ Arguments<\/span>