Logic and argumentation, and the need for no further explanations.....

July 24, 2011 - PRLog -- Why bother to learn more about logic and arguments? Does it really matter and does it really help anyone? As a matter of fact, yes it does — and there are several good reasons to take the time to learn more about both topics.

The most immediate and obvious benefit from such a study is that it can allow you to improve the quality of the arguments you use. When you create logically unsound arguments, you are much less likely to convince people that you have a valid point to make, or get them to agree with you. Even if they aren’t familiar with logic, many people will realize that there is something wrong with some fallacious arguments without being able to identify the fallacy involved.

A second and closely related benefit will be an improved ability to evaluate the arguments of others. When you understand how arguments are supposed to be constructed and also how they shouldn’t be constructed, you will find all sorts of bad arguments out there. You may even be surprised to find out how many people are swayed by bad arguments.



IS THE ARGUMENT A VALID ONE.

There are several senses for the word "argument," so there are several ways for arguments to succeed or fail. In one sense, an argument is just an abstract structure of statement, some of which are premises and one of which is the conclusion. But that leaves out the arguer — or arguers. One person can present an argument, but it takes two to have an argument.

Three common models are helpful for thinking about arguments: mathematicians’ proofs, lawyers’ presentations, and formal debates. A mathematical proof is good if the conclusion really does follow from the premises. A lawyer’s case is good when it cites the relevant legal precedents and uses the available evidence in the best possible way. One way to judge a debater’s case is by whether it successfully responds to objections, answers questions, and offers persuasive reasons — in short, by whether it wins. These criteria are separable. A proof can be valid, even if no one is persuaded; a lawyer may have done her job well even though she lost her case; and a debater might win although his reasoning was flawed — or he might lose despite very good argumentation. These correspond, roughly, to three areas of argumentation theory: logic, rhetoric, and dialectics.

Logic is the study of inferences, the links that constitute the chains of reasoning in arguments. Rhetoric is the art of rational persuasion — not just persuasion itself. Dialectics, as the term will be used here, refers to the communicative exchanges, the give and take that make up dialogical arguments. The techniques we will bring to bear on argument analysis all have that same end: to enable us to say something intelligent about arguments. If an argument fails, we want to know what went wrong in order to avoid such failures in our reasoning and, more important, not be taken in by similarly fraudulent arguments in the future. If the argument succeeds, we want to be able to identify its particular virtues so they may be used again.

Two main approaches will be developed in this course. First comes critical thinking. This includes argument diagramming and fallacy identification. Diagramming is largely a descriptive exercise involving the abstraction of form from content to isolate the logical structure of ordinary arguments. Accordingly, we develop and deploy conventions for representing the internal relationships of the parts of arguments — premises, inferences, conclusions, etc. Identifying an argument as fallacious is a more evaluative task. Content and "extra-logical" knowledge must be taken into account. The second approach uses the powerful techniques of symbolic logic. The first formal logic was Aristotle’s syllogistic logic, but we will begin with the more general propositional logic. The syntax of a symbolic language is developed, along with a formal semantics to provide the means for evaluating argument validity. This section culminates with proofs, the most rigorous logical exercise. Finally, with the time remaining, we will turn to the richly expressive language and inferential powerful system of first-order predicate logic.

IS IT FAIR TO HEAR THE ARGUMENT.

It is a common experience to hear someone argue for a position, and sense that something is wrong with the argument. Perhaps the reasoning is somehow flawed or there are hidden assumptions that are questionable. We think the argument should not be persuasive but perhaps we are not sure just why. We can criticize such arguments as bad or weak, or even use stronger terms of abuse like fallacious or illogical, but that is not enough. We want to be able to say more. Why does the argument fail? What makes it fallacious? What are its strengths and weaknesses? What could be done to strengthen it? For our purposes — argumentation theory — the fundamental question is always this is a clear and simple subject with no need to extensive analysis.



The best example is the  subject of body, mind, and spirit. In lieu of arguing about what is theses subject and who might benefit from all the topics wrtten about these subjects, the necessary need of extending the subjects to those who are in need for developement in any of the areas of body, mind, and spirit.

Rather the business of peeping into people either personal or professional lives, trying to create criminals, or awaiting for the criminals to be, so a good story of a hero was born.

As the same approach to many of our problems with those negative percepetions which are carried on with vicious actions bring into our lives more dramatics of how horrifying these people are to be toward us in any class of our society, any jobs, and any color or religion groups.

# # #

Publisher/editor/author for health, diet, and fitness articles, books, and for immediate release short stories featuring important events in the Orange county area. Promote for citizens cause such as Athletes for Disability, and to get rid of stubborn fat