Towards A Pragmatic Logic of Arguments: An Informal Talk For Sci-Tech Undergrads

Introduction
What is an argument?
Interpreting & Assessing are like Analysis & Synthesis
Writing Classical Arguments
Towards a Pragmatic Logic of Arguments

(with Special Reference to Computational Intelligence)
An Informal Talk for Sci-Tech Undergrads
Joshua Bowles1,2
1 Department of English
Utah Valley University
2 Department of Linguistics
University of Utah
June 4, 2010/ Lecture
Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

Introduction
Outline
1 Introduction
2 What is an argument?
Why do we care?
Definition
I don’t See your Argument
3 Interpreting & Assessing are like Analysis & Synthesis
Subjective goals
Objective goals
And so. . .
4 Writing Classical Arguments
Practical considerations
Concrete things to look for
Refined Argument
What we want
The basics: Recap
Introduction
What this lecture is
This is a rough draft version of a long-term project geared

specifically towards my Sci-Tech wrting students and in relation
to the final research paper. This presentation also shows a
template Beamer class within the LATEXtypesetting framework.

Introduction
Why not a Computer?
Computational software is good at structure and logic, but it cannot write a

Classical Argument paper.
If writing research papers was merely a process of compiling syllogism on top of
syllogism – constructing sorites – then programs would write them for us.
I do not explicitly discuss this idea, but please keep it in mind because it is
related in a very strong sense to all that follows (especially in reference to
notions like “setting” and “subjective interpretation.”) Think of what it would take,
as a logical structure, for a program to write a Classical Argument research
paper. How could we develop the structure needed for a program to dynamically
maintain biases, prejudices, and assumptions about how the world works.

Introduction
Why do we care?
Definition
Parsons’ Article
Parsons discusses the basic and intuitive notion of what an

argument is. This article was published in The Journal of
Philosophy, and so, we can assume he is talking to
philosophers—people who, we might also assume, already
know what an ‘argument’ is. The first questions that might
entertain us are below.

Introduction
Why do we care?
Definition
Outline
1 Introduction
Why do we care?
Definition
Subjective goals
Objective goals
And so. . .
Refined Argument
What we want
The basics: Recap
Introduction
Why do we care?
Definition
Questions
Why should we care about arguments?

1 Why do philosophers need to know what an argument is?
2 Why does Parsons need to tell philosophers what an
argument is?
3 Are we philosophers?

Introduction
Why do we care?
Definition
Why should we care?
The question of ‘Why we should care’ is an important one: It

has relevance to our sense of (i) what an ‘academic’ is, (ii) what
academics actually do in and for society, and (iii) what use does
an academic have in society (what kinds of responsibilities they
have to society — think here of a comparison to athletes,
teachers, politicians, firefighters, police, soldiers. etc. . . .) Not
only for academics, but how we digest arguments (or our ability
to analyze them) effects various aspects of our personal and
professional lives; as I mention later.

Introduction
Why do we care?
Definition
Outline
1 Introduction
Why do we care?
Definition
Subjective goals
Objective goals
And so. . .
Refined Argument
What we want
The basics: Recap
Introduction
Why do we care?
Definition
Argument defined (first try)
A RGUMENT
An argument refers to the abstract structure of reasoning
employed in the process of analyzing various concepts, ideas,
opinions, . . . . It may be dialogical (requiring two or more
speakers) but it does not have to be. In any case, it is
dialectical.
Dialectical
Dialectic is the process of a Thesis and Antithesis being
synthesized to a new Thesis. The cycle goes on indefinitely.
First proposed by Aristotle, developed by Hegel and other
German Idealist philosophers.

Introduction
Why do we care?
Definition
Outline
1 Introduction
Why do we care?
Definition
Subjective goals
Objective goals
And so. . .
Refined Argument
What we want
The basics: Recap
Introduction
Why do we care?
Definition
A technical notion
“I see what your premises are,” says the philosopher, “and I see
your conclusion. But I just don’t see how you get there. I don’t
see the argument” Parsons 1996: 1
Parsons wants to. . .

. . . distinguish the notion of argument in philosophy from the
technical notion in logic—syllogism. Argument has more stuff to
it.

Introduction
Why do we care?
Definition
A technical notion
“I see what your premises are,” says the philosopher, “and I see
your conclusion. But I just don’t see how you get there. I don’t
see the argument” Parsons 1996: 1
Parsons wants to. . .

. . . distinguish the notion of argument in philosophy from the
technical notion in logic—syllogism. Argument has more stuff to
it.

Introduction
Why do we care?
Definition
The ‘stuff between’
Parsons is not only concerned with the holistic form of

arguments, but in the relationship between the logic and the
language of arguments. The ‘stuff between’ the premises and
conclusions of typical syllogistic reasoning.

Introduction
Subjective goals
Outline
1 Introduction
Why do we care?
Definition
Subjective goals
Objective goals
And so. . .
Refined Argument
What we want
The basics: Recap
Introduction
Subjective goals
The subjective status of logic
Interpretation is always subjective. It cannot be otherwise.

BUT

Introduction
Subjective goals
Interpretation
Recognition of the subjective nature of interpretation is not an

allowance to BE purely subjective.
Parsons 1996: 4
The first step, interpreting the text, is a sophisticated scholarly
task. It is typically underdetermined by all available
evidence. . . , there may be an ineliminable element of
subjectivity to it. The second step is the logical task of
assessing an argument. This is mostly clear and objective.

Introduction
Subjective goals
Interpretation
Recognition of the subjective nature of interpretation is not an

allowance to BE purely subjective.
Parsons 1996: 4
The first step, interpreting the text, is a sophisticated scholarly
task. It is typically underdetermined by all available
evidence. . . , there may be an ineliminable element of
subjectivity to it. The second step is the logical task of
assessing an argument. This is mostly clear and objective.

Introduction
Subjective goals
The illusion of Objectivity
“mostly clear and objective” assessment of an

interpretation does not need rely so much on subjectivity.
It can proceed by relying on models of logic.
Logic is. . .
an artificial language(s) that have been consciously constructed
to contain mathematical rigor and delete unfortunate structures
in natural languages, like ambiguity, in order to investigate
notions like ‘true,’ ‘false,’ ‘contradiction,’ and ‘consistent.’

Introduction
Subjective goals
The illusion of Objectivity
“mostly clear and objective” assessment of an

interpretation does not need rely so much on subjectivity.
It can proceed by relying on models of logic.
Logic is. . .
an artificial language(s) that have been consciously constructed
to contain mathematical rigor and delete unfortunate structures
in natural languages, like ambiguity, in order to investigate
notions like ‘true,’ ‘false,’ ‘contradiction,’ and ‘consistent.’

Introduction
Subjective goals
What does this mean?
1 Recognize our subjectivity

biases,
assumptions,
world view,
ethics/ethos,
opinions/pathos
2 Assess our subjectivity in relation to interpretation of an
argument
This results in. . .

the ability to use our subjective interpretations as a tool for
assessment. It helps guarantee that our interpretations
approximate ‘truth,’ ‘fact,’ and ‘reality.’

Introduction
Subjective goals
What does this mean?
1 Recognize our subjectivity

biases,
assumptions,
world view,
ethics/ethos,
opinions/pathos
2 Assess our subjectivity in relation to interpretation of an
argument
This results in. . .

the ability to use our subjective interpretations as a tool for
assessment. It helps guarantee that our interpretations
approximate ‘truth,’ ‘fact,’ and ‘reality.’

Introduction
What is an argument? Practical considerations
Interpreting & Assessing are like Analysis & Synthesis Concrete things to look for
Outline
1 Introduction
Why do we care?
Definition
Subjective goals
Objective goals
And so. . .
Refined Argument
What we want
The basics: Recap
Introduction
How does this apply to us?

Let’s be practical:
Most of you simply to need to pass the class
Most of you will not write professionally
Most of you just want to finish your paper
Learning to recognize subjective interpretation and provide
an assessment of your opinion goes far outside this class:
==>
1 Voting
2 Co-workers and bosses (interpersonal)
3 Dating
4 Career (advancement)
5 . . . other areas
Introduction

==>
1 Voting
3 Dating
5 . . . other areas
Introduction

==>
1 Voting
3 Dating
5 . . . other areas
Introduction

==>
1 Voting
3 Dating
5 . . . other areas
Introduction

==>
1 Voting
3 Dating
5 . . . other areas
Introduction

==>
1 Voting
3 Dating
5 . . . other areas
Introduction

==>
1 Voting
3 Dating
5 . . . other areas
Introduction

==>
1 Voting
3 Dating
5 . . . other areas
Introduction

==>
1 Voting
3 Dating
5 . . . other areas
Introduction

==>
1 Voting
3 Dating
5 . . . other areas
Introduction
Outline
1 Introduction
Why do we care?
Definition
Subjective goals
Objective goals
And so. . .
Refined Argument
What we want
The basics: Recap
Introduction
The 3 conditions
A refined argument must meet the following conditions.

1 Setting: Set of assumptions about the world; assumed
rules, principles, propositions, opinions, ethics.
2 Targets: The goal (to establish some particular proposition
or position).
3 Reasoning Structures: A sequence of statements meant
to reach a Target in a specific Setting; (Syllogism is a type
of reasoning structure).
Argument, from Parsons (1996)

is a ‘task’ that employs a reasoning structure in a setting with a
target.

Introduction
The 3 conditions

or position).

target.

Introduction
The 3 conditions

or position).

target.

Introduction
The 3 conditions

or position).

target.

Introduction
Successfully, yours
A successful argument must meet the following criteria.

1 Every premise is among the statements assumed in the
setting.
2 Every inference is in accordance with a principle of
inference assumed in the setting.
3 The conclusion is the target identified in the goal.
4 The reasoning structure is noncircular.
5 There is no infinite regress of justifications for any step.

Introduction
Successfully, yours

setting.

Introduction
Successfully, yours

setting.

Introduction
Successfully, yours

setting.

Introduction
Successfully, yours

setting.

Introduction
Successfully, yours

setting.

Introduction
An argument table
Setting Target Reasoning Structure

assumptions goal statements sequence
explicit? achieved? coherent, consistent?
implicit? not? support setting and goal?

Introduction
Towards a Pragmatic Logic of Arguments

(with Special Reference to Computational Intelligence)
An Informal Talk for Sci-Tech Undergrads
Joshua Bowles1,2
1 Department of English
Utah Valley University
2 Department of Linguistics
University of Utah
June 4, 2010/ Lecture

Introduction
Outline
1 Introduction
Why do we care?
Definition
Subjective goals
Objective goals
And so. . .
Refined Argument
What we want
The basics: Recap

Towards A Pragmatic Logic of Arguments: An Informal Talk For Sci-Tech Undergrads

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Towards A Pragmatic Logic of Arguments: An Informal Talk For Sci-Tech Undergrads

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Introduction

Towards a Pragmatic Logic of Arguments

June 4, 2010/ Lecture

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

What this lecture is

This is a rough draft version of a long-term project geared

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

Why not a Computer?

Computational software is good at structure and logic, but it cannot write a

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

Parsons discusses the basic and intuitive notion of what an

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

Why should we care about arguments?

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

Why should we care?

The question of ‘Why we should care’ is an important one: It

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

Argument defined (first try)

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

Parsons wants to. . .

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

Parsons wants to. . .

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

The ‘stuff between’

Parsons is not only concerned with the holistic form of

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

The subjective status of logic

Interpretation is always subjective. It cannot be otherwise.

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

Recognition of the subjective nature of interpretation is not an

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

Recognition of the subjective nature of interpretation is not an

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

The illusion of Objectivity

“mostly clear and objective” assessment of an

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

The illusion of Objectivity

“mostly clear and objective” assessment of an

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

What does this mean?

1 Recognize our subjectivity

This results in. . .

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

What does this mean?

1 Recognize our subjectivity

This results in. . .

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

How does this apply to us?

How does this apply to us?

How does this apply to us?

How does this apply to us?

How does this apply to us?

How does this apply to us?

How does this apply to us?

How does this apply to us?

How does this apply to us?

How does this apply to us?

A refined argument must meet the following conditions.

Argument, from Parsons (1996)

Joshua Bowles Pragmatic Logic

A refined argument must meet the following conditions.

Argument, from Parsons (1996)