Approach reasons by way of arguments, because arguments are just ways to express

reasons.
-

If you can understand arguments, you can understand reasons.

If you can formulate good arguments, you can have good reasons for the ways in
which you think and behave; (namely to get better reasons for your own beliefs and
actions.)

One can avoid mistakes.

Studying arguments:
1.

Analyze arguments.
Here's an example. Consider a letter to the editor. Some letters to the editor don't have
arguments at all. They just say, thank people for having behaved in nice ways or done
nice things. On the other hand, other letters to the editor include arguments. They try
to convince you; to vote for a certain political candidate for example.
So you need to distinguish which passages include arguments and which passages
don't include arguments. Then, you need to look at those passages and figure out
which of the words, which parts of those passages contain the argument. Then you
need to separate out those parts, put them in a certain order, which we'll call
standard form. And, often these arguments will have missing parts and you'll have to
supply those missing parts or suppressed premises in order to get a full picture of how
the argument works.

2.

Evaluate arguments
-

Purpose of the argument

1. Logical propositional and categorical
2. Deductive formal structure
3. Inductive statistical generalizations, inference from analogy, causal
reasoning and probability and decision making.
4. Fallacies vagueness, ambiguity, irrelevance (arguments ad hominem and
appeals to ignorance) and begging
5. General method for spotting and avoiding these common mistakes.

Understanding arguments Figure out what arguments are Figure out what
arguments are not

Best source of information about what arguments are not, is, of course, Monty Python.

Arguments are not fights.

-

Sometimes little children say that their parents are arguing, when they're really
having a verbal fight. You cannot win an argument just by yelling at someone.
That doesn't make the argument any better because that's not the point of arguing.

Abuse is one of the things you do with language, but it's not the same as arguing.
You cannot win an argument simply by calling your opponent a stupid git.

Complaints don't amount to an argument either. They're just expressing your

emotion about the situation.

Argument is not the same as contradiction. In British English to say a

contradiction is just to deny the person or contradict what they said. Contradicting
what the person said, that is denying it, is not arguing.

Argument is an intellectual process. It's a process not just of asserting your views, but
of giving some kind of reason for your views.

An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a proposition. It's a series of

statements, and statements are made in language, so arguments are made of language.
The purpose of argument, they say, is to establish a certain proposition.

Arguments are trying to put statements into a certain structure that reflects the order of
reasoning in order to establish the proposition according to Monty Python. But Monty
Python, no matter how great they are, and they are great, didn't get it quite right because
the purpose of an argument is not always to establish a proposition because some
propositions that are conclusions of arguments, we already knew.
Consider for example a mathematical proof. If someone tries to prove the Pythagorean
Theorem in geometry, People already believe the theorem. They already knew that it was
true. So they weren't trying to establish the proposition. But the proof does something
else; it shows you how that proposition is connected to the axioms of the system. It helps
you understand why the proposition is true. And, we'll see that other arguments, like
explanations, do the same thing. So sometimes arguments are intended to establish a
proposition, like Monty Python said, but in other cases they're intended to help us
understand the proposition and the reasons why the proposition is true.

Definition an argument as a connected series of sentences or statements or propositions,

where some of these sentences or statements or propositions or premises and one of them
is the conclusion and the one's that are premises are intended to provide some kind of
reason for the one that's the conclusion.
-

Argument
1. Parts premises and conclusion
2. Composition (whats made of) language because sentences and statements
and propositions are made in language
3. Purpose to give a reason for the conclusion
4. Feature very flexible because there are lots of different kinds of reasons
5. Broad definition because then it won't cover all the different kinds of
arguments, and the notion of reason captures the different kinds of relations
between the premises and the conclusion in different kinds of arguments.

The purposes which people give for arguments are crucial in determining what an object
is.
Take for example an artefact that you might find in an archaeological site. You won't be
able to figure out whether it's a really big screwdriver or a really small spatula unless you
know whether the people who used it intended it to screw screws or to pick up food that
they were cooking.
So, to understand arguments we need to understand the purposes for arguments. And that
means, why does somebody bother to give an argument instead of just asserting the
conclusion without an argument?

Purpose of arguments:
-

Persuading/ Convincing to try to convince you to do things or believe things

that you wouldn't otherwise do or believe.
E.g. the salesman's trying is trying to change your mental states. He's trying to
make you believe something that you didn't believe or do something that you
didn't do. So he's trying to bring about an effect in the world.

Justification trying to give them a reason for their belief or for our belief (i.e. a
reason to believe the conclusion); not necessarily to convince them or persuade
them or change their beliefs.
E.g. so, imagine that your friend is thinking about buying a car. He doesn't know
which one to buy. You might say. Well, I think you ought to buy the Mustang
because it looks really good and it goes really fast and its actually got pretty good
gas mileage and its quiet, reliable or whatever. You're not necessarily trying to
convince her to buy that car. It'd be fine with you if she bought any car she
wanted, any car that would make her happy. You're trying to talk about the
reasons for buying the car so that you can make your own decision. And that says
you're trying to justify that decision or that belief that Mustang is the best car for
her to buy. And not necessarily to convince her or persuade her, if she comes up
with great reason to the contrary you're perfect happy.
Whereas the salesman wouldn't be. But notice that you might give exactly the
same reasons that the salesman did. Exactly the same argument that the salesman
did. The difference lies in the purpose because the salesman is trying to convince
her to change her beliefs and actions, but your goal with your friend is to discuss
the reasons for her decision or action. So, you're thinking about justification and
the salesman was thinking about persuasion.

When someone gives you an argument, you need to ask a series of questions to
understand what the purpose of giving the argument is.
-

Is this person trying to change my mind? Or change my behavior?

If so, then their goal is persuasion or to convince you.

Are they trying to give reasons to change my mind? Or for believing, if I already
believed it.
Well, if they're doing that then their goal is justification.

One students submission presented in an argument about persuasion and justification and
the relation between them.
Strong arguments don't always persuade everyone by Jessica Hyde from the United
Kingdom. It's not enough for an argument to be strong, valid and sound to be persuasive.
You can have an argument for which every premise is genuinely true, and where every
conceivable flaw in the argument is negated and still, not have it be persuasive.

There will almost always be someone who either misunderstands the argument, or blindly
believes the opposite of a premise, in face of facts. Human beings aren't always logical
and don't always believe scientifically proven cause and effect. Religious and cultural
beliefs can be too hard to overcome. So even the best arguments can have disbelievers.

One student, Judith comments on Jessica's argument.

I think Jessica has opened a very interesting discussion with her argument. Thank you
Jessica, I appreciate that, we do too. When I'm learning, is the purpose of an argument is
to state with clarity, and some degree of certainty, an opinion or point of view; a valid,
strong and sound argument in it of itself may never persuade or convert anyone to adopt a
different way of thinking.
So what. What a strong argument does is communicate clearly what one thinks and why
they think it. So I guess the benchmark of success for many arguments is not complete
persuasion, but is how clearly one is understood. If someone's intent is to blindly refute
everything, that's not an intellectually honest engagement.
I've found that in construction better, more thoughtful arguments people may not agree
with me, but they're far more considerate of what I have to say. And by using much of
what we're learning, I'm listening much more intently to other views. Yes, Jessica, many
things do defy logic. We just keep trying to do our best.

Purpose of arguments:
-

Understanding helping us cooperate with each other and live with each other
and compromise on the very important issues that we all face. Sometimes the
point of an argument is not to bring other people over to your point of view. But
just to make them understand why you hold the position that you do. You're trying
to show them your reasons even if you know that those reasons are not reasons
that they, themselves, are going to accept.
Well, why would you want to do that? Because it makes them more considerate of
what you believe and of you. Because generally, if we understand each other and
the reasons why we hold our positions, we'll respect each other more and be more
considerate.
The example where this is not working is politics. Everybody knows that
politicians just yell at each other and don't really listen to each other. They just

scream out what's going to appeal to their base without thinking about what the
real reasons are for the positions they're holding.