Lecture 3-3 - Get Down to Basics

Now that we understand validity, we can
use the notion of validity in

reconstructing arguments. Now, the point
of reconstructing an argument is to put it

in a shape that makes it easier for us to
assess the argument more accurately and

fairly for whether it's a good argument or
a bad argument. And when we do the

reconstruction, remember, you want to make
it as good an argument as possible because

you don't learn anything from putting down
your enemies by making them look silly,

right? If you want to learn from somebody
else's argument, you need to put it in the

best shape you can to make it look as good
as possible. So, that's going to be the

goal of reconstruction. And we are going
to accomplish that goal in a series of

stages. The first stage simply to do a
close analysis and we talked about that

last week. The second stage is to get down
to basics. That is to remove all the

excess words and focus on the premises and
conclusions that really make up the

argument and then put those into standard
form. The third stage is to clarify those

premises. They're not always going to be
as clear as you like and that's going to

take some work and it's going to include
breaking them into parts. And then, the

next stage is to take those parts and
organize them, to put them in order, so

you can see how the argument flows from
one part to another. But not all arguments

are complete so the next stage, we have to
fill in the gaps, that is supply

suppressed premises. And once we've done
that, then the final stage is going to be

assess the argument. If we are able to
come up with a sound reconstruction, we

know that the conclusion has to be true.
Because as we learned in the previous

lecture, the conclusion of sound arguments
is always true. But if we don't come up

with a sound reconstruction, then we've
got to decide, is it the fault of the

argument or is it our own fault because we
didn't come up with a sound reconstruction

when there really is one that we didn't
find. So, that's going to be something we

have to discuss. We're g oing to discuss
all of these stages over the next few

lectures. Now, the first stage of
reconstruction is to do a close analysis.

But we already learned how to do that,
that was easy. Boy, I hope the rest of

them are that easy. This lecture is mainly
going to be about the second stage, namely

getting down to basics. And what we want
to do is to pull out the explicit premise

and conclusion from all the other words
around it. And the first step is to remove

all the excess verbiage. You know, it
might seem very surprising but people

often repeat themselves, I'm sure you've
all run into it. I mean, you listen to

somebody give a, a talk and it takes them
fifty minutes to say what they could have

said easily in five minutes and one of the
reasons is that they say everything ten

times. You know, for instance, people
often say the same thing twice, they

repeat themselves. They say the same thing
over again and they restate the point in

different words and they utter sentences
that mean the same thing. And they say

something and then, you know, they say it
again and they make a claim twice or more.

They exert exactly what they just said and
they reformulate their claim in different

words that are equivalent. They say it
once and then, they say it again, you get

the idea. Now, here is a real example from
a US politician during a debate. I'm going

to be honest with people, we can't
eliminate this deficit. People have heard

that over and over again in four years, we
cannot do it, we're in too deep a hole.

Now, if you think about it, it's going to
be obvious that we cannot do it. Repeats,

we can't eliminate this deficit, cuz
that's what it's doing, it is eliminating

the deficit. But also, we're in too deep a
hole. Well, that's just a metaphorical way

of saying the same thing. Why is the hole
too deep? Because we can't get out of it.

What hole is it? It's the deficit hole.
So, to say we can't get out of this hole,

we're in too deep a hole. It's just
another way of saying we can't eliminate

the deficit. So, in these three lin es,
he's already repeated himself three times.

Now, why does this politician repeat
himself? It might be that he thinks people

will remember it better or one version
will make more sense than another. But he

might have a special reason cuz this was a
live debate and he had to give a 90-second

answer. So, he had to fill up the time.
Sometimes people repeat themselves just to

fill up the time or maybe to give himself
time to think cuz he didn't have a real

answer ready yet and repeating himself is
easy while he thinks about what he's

really going to say in the next few
sentences. Fine. But repeating it still

doesn't make the argument any better and
we want to get down to the basics of the

argument that is the parts of the argument
that really affect how good it is, so we

can cross out those repetitions that don't
make the argument any better. So first, we

can cross out we cannot do it. Then, we
can cross out, we're in too deep a hole.

We already saw that those are just
repeating the claim that we can't

eliminate the deficit. In addition, we can
cross out, I want to be honest with people

because that's not a reason to believe
we're in too deep a deficit. And next, we

can cross out that people have heard that
over and over again in four years. Well,

that might be seen as a reason to believe
that we're in a deficit because everybody

seems to say it, but let's assume that's
not part of his argument here and we'll

cross it out. Now, let's move on. A second
form of excess verbiage that is words that

don't contribute to the force of the
argument is what I like to call road

markers. A lot of times, people, you know,
good speakers, they tell you what topic

they are talking about and why they are
talking about it. Why it's important and

worth talking about. But to say why it's
an important issue and to say what issue

it is, doesn't provide any reason to
believe that what they say about the issue

is true or false. So, it doesn't
contribute to the argument. Here's an

example from the same politician in the
same debate as we j ust saw. This

politician said, now, I want to go back to
the whole issue of healthcare, because we

touched it, and I think the American
people deserve to know what we would do

different. And notice that he says, he's
going to talk about healthcare but he

doesn't say anything about healthcare. He
didn't tell you what he's going to say

about healthcare. All he says is he wants
to go back to that issue. And he tells you

why he wants to go back to that issue. But
he doesn't add any reason to believe that

what he's about to say about the issue is
true. Now, this can, of course, still be

useful because you might get confused
about what the issue is and he might be

changing the topic and he wants to signal
that he is changing the topic, and that

will help his listeners. But it still
doesn't add to the argument, it doesn't

give you any reason for the conclusion
that he's going to want to draw. We can

cross out these excess words. we can cross
out, now, I want to go back to the whole

issue of healthcare because that doesn't
show that his views on healthcare are

correct. And we can cross out because we
touched it. That's a reason why we're

going to that issue, but again, that
doesn't give any reason why his views are

correct. And we can even cross out, but I
think the American people deserve to know

what we would do different because the
fact that they deserve to know what you're

going to do doesn't show that what you're
going to do is the right thing to do. So,

none of these claims are really reasons
that are going to be reasons for the main

part of his argument, which is to support
the particular views on healthcare that

he's going to tell you about a few seconds
after this. The next type of excess

verbiage is tangents. People go off on
tangents all the time. Here's an example.

You know, you really ought to think about
taking a History course. I, I still

remember my History courses in college.
There was this one time when, there was a

dog that one of the students brought to
class and, and the dog like barked and

then he ran up on stage and he, he cut
under the professor and knocked the

professor on his rear-end. It was really
funny. So, you know, I think that History

is a good thing to study. Now, notice that
all this stuff about the dog has nothing

to do with History. It's no reason to take
a History course instead of a Philosophy

course or a Classics course or a Science
course. The same thing could happen in

those courses just as well. So, the
tangent plays a certain role. It makes it

interesting. It keeps your attention.
Maybe it makes it memorable for you, what

he said. But it doesn't actually provide a
reason why you ought to take a History

course. So, since those parts of the words
were just a tangent that don't provide any

reason we can cross them out, too, because
they are excess verbiage. But sometimes,

people go off on irrelevant tangents. Not
just by accident because they lose their

train of thought, but because they're
trying to fool you. They're trying to

produce what is called a red herring. The
name red hearing supposedly comes from

somebody who crossed the red herring over
the trail and then the hound couldn't

track its scent anymore. And that's
basically what's going on here. Sometimes,

people produce tangents that distracts you
from the main line of argument because

they know that there are weaknesses in
that line of argument and they don't want

you to notice them. That's what a red
herring is. And it's a type of tangent

that you have to learn to watch out for.
Because if you want to see the problems in

your opponent's arguments or even in your
friend's arguments, then you need to not

get distracted by tangents that are in
effect red herrings. Yet, another example

of excess verbiage is, well, examples.
Here's an example of that. A different

politician in the same debate said this.
Here's what happened. In the time that

they have been in office in the last four
years, 1.6 million private sector jobs

have been lost, 2.7 million manufacturing
jobs have been lost. And it's had real

consequences in places like Cle veland.
Cleveland is a wonderful distinguished

city. It's done a lot of great things, but
it has the highest poverty rate in the

country. One out of almost two children in
Cleveland are now living in poverty. Now,

notice that this politician is talking
about the unemployment rate in the rest of

the country, in the country as a whole.
So, why bring in Cleveland? Well, you

might be saying that Cleveland shows that
there's problems throughout the rest of

the country, but that can't be right
because Cleveland is just one example. And

it might be an outlier that doesn't
represent the general trends. So, what

he's doing with this example is he's
trying to bring it down the home, and make

you feel for the real effects. But he
doesn't come out and say that you can

generalize from Cleveland to the rest of
the country, or that everyone else is

suffering in exactly the same way. He's
just giving one example. And so, it

doesn't really support his general claim
that the unemployment is a problem

throughout the whole country. That means
that it's not an extra premise in the

argument and we can cross it out like
other forms of excess verbiage. Now, we've

seen that excess verbiage can take the
form of repetition or road markers or

tangents or examples. And people use these
a lot. Matter of fact, I like to think of

a general trick that people use called the
trick of excess verbiage. A lot of people

talk too much and they keep saying things
over and over again, go off on tangents,

and give more examples than they really
need. And all of that is a way of hiding

the problem with their position. It's a
trick to use too many words because the

real point gets lost in the middle of
those words. So, you can fool people by

throwing in those extra words. That's the
trick of excess verbiage but be careful.

What seems like excess verbiage that's
just there to trick you might really be an

essential part of the argument. So what
you need to do when you have a passage and

you're trying to get the argument out of
it, is to cross out all the exc ess words

but also look at what's left over. If
what's left over is enough premises and

conclusion to make a good argument, then
the stuff that you crossed out probably

really is excess. But if it turns out that
what's left over is not a very good

argument, to autocheck all those words you
crossed out and make sure they really

weren't necessary. Cuz you're not being
fair to the person that you're

interpreting if you crossed out something
that was an essential part of the

argument. And some cases are going to be
tricky. Its not going to be clear whether

or not to cross the noun. Some small words
that are tricky are guarding terms. Here

is an example. I think Miranda is at home
so we can meet her there. What's the

guarding word? You already found that out
when you did the close analysis, right? I

think. Now, one way to read this argument
is that the premises I think Miranda is at

home and the conclusion is we can meet her
there. But that's kind of weird because

the fact that you think she is at home is
not what makes it true that you can meet

her there, it's the fact that she is at
home that can make it the case that you

can meet her there. So, if the premise is
about what you think, and the conclusion

is about where she is and where you can
meet her, then the argument doesn't make

any sense. So, in this case, what we want
to do is to cross out the words I think,

because that's going to make the argument
silly and the argument really amounts to,

Miranda is at home, so we can meet her
there. And the I think covers that whole

thing. It's saying, I think she's at home,
so I think we can meet her there. But the

argument doesn't involve some premise
about what your thoughts are and contrast

this with a different argument. Miranda is
at home, so we can probably meet her

there. Now, there's another guarding term,
right? Probably. Can you get rid of that?

Well, then the argument becomes Miranda is
at home, so we can meet her there. But

that's clearly not what the speaker was
trying to say, if they included the word

probab ly.
They realized that the fact that she's at

home right now doesn't mean that we can
meet her there because it might take us

awhile to get there and she might leave
while we're on the way. So, it's not fair

to the person giving the argument. And it
makes the argument look worse to cross out

the word, probably. So, in that case, you
want to keep the guarding term in order to

properly represent the force of the
argument. So, it looks like sometimes, you

need to keep the guarding terms and
sometimes, you need to cross them out. And

there's not going to be any strict rule
that you can follow. You have to use your

sense of what's going to make the argument
as good as possible. What's going to fit

what the speaker was really trying to say.
Another tricky case is assuring terms.

Suppose I'm writing a letter of
recommendation and I say, he is clearly a

great worker. I know that. So, you ought
to hire him. The assuring terms are

clearly and I know that. But now, the
question is, is the argument really first

premise, he's clearly a great worker.
Second premise, I know that. Conclusion,

you ought to hire him. It's kind of weird.
Again, if you think about it, cuz you're

not hiring him because it's clear. If he's
a great worker but it's not clear that

he's a great worker, then you're still
ought to hire him because he is a great

worker. Or if he's a great worker and I
don't know he's a great worker, you still

ought to hire him cuz he's a great worker.
The fact that I know it is irrelevant to

whether you want to hire him cuz that's
about my mental states not his abilities.

So, that representation of the argument
doesn't really capture the force of

somebody who writes this letter of
recommendation. So, we can cross out the

words I know that and we can cross out
clearly, and then the argument is he's a

great worker so you ought to hire him. But
contrast this example. I am certain that

Jacob is cheating on his wife, so I ougt
to tell her. Now, you might think I am

certain that is just another assuring term
so we can cross it ou t.

And then, the real argument is Jacob is
cheating on his wife so I ought to tell

her. But now, think about that argument.
The mere fact that he's cheating on his

wife doesn't mean I ought to tell her if
I'm not certain cuz if I have some

suspicions or I'm just guessing, but I
really don't know, then I probably ought

not to tell Jacob's wife that, you know,
Jacob was cheating on her. So here, the

force of the argument, does seem to depend
on my certainty. If I'm not certain, I

shouldn't tell her. If I am certain, maybe
I should. So, we can't cross out the

assuring term in this case cuz that would
distort the argument. And, of course, some

people might disagree with that. They
might say, well, look, if you have some

reason but your not certain then you ought
to tell her and that could be

controversial. But we're talking here not
about what those people think but what the

speaker thinks, the person giving this
argument when this person said,"I'm I'm

certain that Jacob is cheating on his
wife." They seemed to indicate that to

them, the fact that they are certain
provides an even better reason why he

should tell Jacob's wife. So, if we want
to capture what the person giving the

argument intended in this case, we have to
leave them the assuring term. So, you're

seeing one example, where you ought to get
rid of the assuring terms. And another

example, where you ought to keep the
reassuring terms. And just like with

guarding terms the same point applies.
There is no mechanic rule that will apply

to every case. You have to think through
the argument and decide whether crossing

out those words and removing them distorts
the argument or instead, crossing them out

makes the argument look even better
because the point of removing excess

verbiage is to get rid of the things that
aren't necessary but keep everything that

is necessary to make the argument look as
good as it possibly can look. Finally,

once we've removed all the excess
verbiage, what's left over? The answer is

the explicit premises and conclusion in
the argume nt.

The point of removing the excess verbiage
was to separate those essential parts of

the argument, those basics of the argument
from all the stuff that's unnecessary. Of

course, we still have to decide which ones
are premises and which ones the

conclusion, right? And that's why the
close analysis helps because we indicated

which ones were reason markers and which
ones were conclusion markers and that lets

you to identify that these are the
premises and that's the conclusion. And so

now, we can do step three. We can put the
argument standard form. We put the

premises above the line and we put dot
pyramid, and then the conclusion below the

line. And we've got the argument in
standard form, which completes stage two

of the reconstruction project. At this
point, it's useful to look back at the

passage and see whether you've gotten rid
off all the excess included all of the

basics of the argument. So, you can look
at the passage and say, is everything

that's not crossed out in a premise or a
conclusion of the standard form. And if

there's something that's still there in
the passage that isn't used, you've got to

decide at that point is it really excess
or not. And, of course, if the argument

looks really bad, you've got to look back
and see whether it's missing something

that you had crossed out as being excess
verbiage when it really was an essential

part of the argument. So, we can use this
process of putting it into standard form

as a test of whether we've performed
properly the other step of getting rid of

excess verbiage. So, steps two and three
really work together in this stage two of

getting down to basics. That's what helps
us to use the different parts to see

whether we've done each of them properly.