1
00:00:02,380 --> 00:00:06,604
We're right in the middle of
reconstruction. We did stage one last

2
00:00:06,604 --> 00:00:11,485
week, cuz that's just close analysis. In
the previous section we did stage two,

3
00:00:11,485 --> 00:00:16,746
which is to remove excess verbiage, and to
put the explicit premises and conclusion

4
00:00:16,746 --> 00:00:21,690
into standard form. And this lecture is
going to focus on stage three, which is

5
00:00:21,690 --> 00:00:27,078
the clarify the premises and to break them
up. Where it's possible without distorting

6
00:00:27,078 --> 00:00:31,705
them. Let's start with step four, which is
to clarify the premises and the

7
00:00:31,705 --> 00:00:37,375
conclusion, when it's needed. So we might
need to clarify them just in order to make

8
00:00:37,375 --> 00:00:42,900
them easier to understand, or to make them
less likely to mislead, and all that

9
00:00:42,900 --> 00:00:49,181
sounds pretty good. So let's try on this
example. It was hot today, so it'll

10
00:00:49,181 --> 00:00:58,045
probably be hot tomorrow again. And we
need to clarify that. What exactly counts

11
00:00:58,045 --> 00:01:04,742
as today? Is that, you know, the time when
there's daylight, or does it also include

12
00:01:04,742 --> 00:01:10,482
night, even though night is not day? And
what exactly do we mean by hot? How hot

13
00:01:10,482 --> 00:01:15,780
was it today, and how hot will it be
tomorrow? And what, after all, is heat?

14
00:01:15,780 --> 00:01:20,444
And what about, it'll probably be hot
tomorrow? Probability. That's a tough

15
00:01:20,444 --> 00:01:25,492
notion. We're going to spend a whole week
on that later on in the course. And there

16
00:01:25,492 --> 00:01:30,284
are different kinds of probability, and I
want to know what kind you're talking

17
00:01:30,284 --> 00:01:35,268
about here. And when you ask for example,
about it will be hot tomorrow, what is,

18
00:01:35,268 --> 00:01:40,252
what does will mean? It means it's going
to happen in the future, and what exactly

19
00:01:40,252 --> 00:01:45,364
is the future? And is the future real? Is
time real? You can go a long way towards

20
00:01:45,364 --> 00:01:50,761
asking how to clarify that argument. But
that's ridiculous, you know. We don't have

21
00:01:50,761 --> 00:01:56,498
to clarify a simple argument like it was
hot today so it will probably be hot

22
00:01:56,498 --> 00:02:01,583
tomorrow. And it's lucky we don't have to
clarify every word in the argument because

23
00:02:01,583 --> 00:02:05,948
we couldn't because after all when you
explain one of the words or give a

24
00:02:05,948 --> 00:02:10,726
definition for it, it's going to be in
terms of other words and then they have to

25
00:02:10,726 --> 00:02:15,209
get clarified and you'll never going to
get to the end of it. The search for

26
00:02:15,209 --> 00:02:19,928
perfect clarity and absolute precision is
impossible. You'll never complete that

27
00:02:19,928 --> 00:02:24,805
search. You'll never find perfect clarity
or absolute precision, so give it up. What

28
00:02:24,805 --> 00:02:29,975
we should seek is not absolute precision,
but adequate precision. Not absolute

29
00:02:29,975 --> 00:02:35,077
clarity, but adequate clarity. And that
means that we ought to try to clear up

30
00:02:35,077 --> 00:02:40,448
those parts of the premises and conclusion
that are likely to produce confusion

31
00:02:40,448 --> 00:02:45,819
later. And you have to be able to kind of
predict whether this part of the argument

32
00:02:45,819 --> 00:02:50,961
needs to be clarified, because people are
going to get confused by it. Now that's

33
00:02:50,961 --> 00:02:56,069
not going to be easy, and there's no
simple or mechanical rule to tell you what

34
00:02:56,069 --> 00:03:00,725
needs to be clarified, and what doesn't
need to be clarified. The only way to

35
00:03:00,725 --> 00:03:06,028
learn this skill is to go through some
examples that will give you models of what

36
00:03:06,028 --> 00:03:11,717
needs to be clarified and what doesn't.
Sometimes, you know, in clarity lies in a

37
00:03:11,717 --> 00:03:18,185
single word. In the 1980's Nancy Reagan
used to say, just say no to drugs. What

38
00:03:18,185 --> 00:03:24,669
does that mean? Well, she is telling you
not to use drugs, to say no when somebody

39
00:03:24,669 --> 00:03:31,235
offers you drugs or tries to tell you to
use drugs. So, in effect, she's saying you

40
00:03:31,235 --> 00:03:38,688
ought not to use drugs. That's pretty
clear but now what does she mean by drugs?

41
00:03:38,688 --> 00:03:44,836
Does she mean aspirin? I don't think she's
telling you not to use aspirin. Does she

42
00:03:44,836 --> 00:03:50,335
mean prescription drugs? I don't think
she's telling you not to follow the advice

43
00:03:50,335 --> 00:03:56,019
of your doctor and use the prescriptions
that the doctor told you to take. So that

44
00:03:56,019 --> 00:04:03,960
can't be what she means. Well, maybe she
means illegal drugs. Okay. Maybe she means

45
00:04:03,960 --> 00:04:08,679
illegal drugs. What about heroin or
cocaine? Yes, that's what she is telling

46
00:04:08,679 --> 00:04:14,036
you not to do. She is definitely telling
you not to take illegal drugs, but then

47
00:04:14,036 --> 00:04:19,329
there are some things in the middle. She
might be telling you not to take dangerous

48
00:04:19,329 --> 00:04:24,240
drugs whether they are illegal or not.
What about nicotine? What about alcohol?

49
00:04:24,240 --> 00:04:29,680
Those are both dangerous drugs, at least
when you use in excess. Alcohol is very

50
00:04:29,680 --> 00:04:34,982
dangerous, and smoking can lead to lung
cancer, and that's how most people get

51
00:04:34,982 --> 00:04:40,491
nicotine. So maybe she's telling you not
to take nico tine or alcohol in addition

52
00:04:40,491 --> 00:04:46,000
to illegal drugs heroin and cocaine. Now
it's not clear, so how do we clear it up?

53
00:04:46,000 --> 00:04:52,552
Well, you want Nancy Reagan's claim to
look as good as possible. Remember, you're

54
00:04:52,552 --> 00:04:58,332
always trying to make the argument look as
good as possible. And one way to make it

55
00:04:58,332 --> 00:05:05,005
look good is to make her claim no more
than she has to claim. So, she could be

56
00:05:05,005 --> 00:05:10,100
claiming, in addition to heroin and
cocaine, you shouldn't take alcohol and

57
00:05:10,100 --> 00:05:15,435
nicotine. But probably, or at least more
plausibly, she's telling you not to take

58
00:05:15,435 --> 00:05:21,122
illegal drugs. She had to chose between
interpreting her and saying don't take any

59
00:05:21,122 --> 00:05:26,393
illegal drugs and don't take any dangerous
drugs. And it's seems like a more

60
00:05:26,393 --> 00:05:32,010
charitable interpretation that makes her
claim look more plausible is don't take

61
00:05:32,010 --> 00:05:37,003
any illegal drugs. So we could clarify her
claim, just say no to drugs, by

62
00:05:37,003 --> 00:05:42,566
interpreting it to mean you ought to not
to take any illegal drugs. So in general

63
00:05:42,566 --> 00:05:47,671
then, the lesson is that, when there are
options about how to clarify a certain

64
00:05:47,671 --> 00:05:52,383
sentence, we ought to pick the most
charitable option that makes the claim

65
00:05:52,383 --> 00:05:58,047
look as good as possible. Here's another
example, where the unclarity can be traced

66
00:05:58,047 --> 00:06:03,700
to a single word, but in this case it's
the word that," and it's not clear what it

67
00:06:03,700 --> 00:06:09,424
refers to. So imagine that someone argues
like this. Let's say, she claims, that our

68
00:06:09,424 --> 00:06:15,780
strategy won't work, because the enemy
knows our plan, but that is a big mistake.

69
00:06:16,780 --> 00:06:24,940
What does that refer to? That could refer
to, that is the word that could refer to

70
00:06:25,900 --> 00:06:30,787
that the enemy knows our plan. If someone
says, that's a mistake, they might be

71
00:06:30,787 --> 00:06:36,072
saying, it's a mistake to think that the
enemy knows our plan. But it could refer

72
00:06:36,072 --> 00:06:41,422
to the claim that our strategy won't work.
They could be saying, it's a mistake to

73
00:06:41,422 --> 00:06:46,508
think our strategy won't work. Or, they
could be saying that the mistake is to

74
00:06:46,508 --> 00:06:52,359
think that the enemy knowing our plan is
enough to make it not work. He might be

75
00:06:52,359 --> 00:06:57,090
saying, it's not that it won't work
because the enemy knows the plan. Or,

76
00:06:57,090 --> 00:07:02,354
here's a fourth possibility. He could be
saying, that is a mistake to think that

77
00:07:02,354 --> 00:07:08,522
she claims that, that's not what she
claims. So, there are four different ways

78
00:07:08,522 --> 00:07:15,096
to interpret, this argument, and in order
to figure out how to interpret it, we have

79
00:07:15,096 --> 00:07:21,097
to figure out which of those is most
likely as an interpretation of what the

80
00:07:21,097 --> 00:07:27,465
arguer is trying to say. And that's going
to depend on which one makes the argument

81
00:07:27,465 --> 00:07:31,891
look the best. Now in this example it's
not clear which interpretation is the

82
00:07:31,891 --> 00:07:36,095
best, because someone might give that
argument in a context where they're saying

83
00:07:36,095 --> 00:07:40,300
the mistake is to think she claims that.
But in other cases they might be saying

84
00:07:40,300 --> 00:07:44,347
that the mistake is to think that the
enemy knows our plan. They don't really

85
00:07:44,347 --> 00:07:48,446
know our plan, and in other cases that
might be claiming that other things are

86
00:07:48,446 --> 00:07:52,388
mistaken. So, we need to figure out what
the person is saying, but that could

87
00:07:52,388 --> 00:07:56,945
depend on the particular context. It might
vary from context to context. Now these

88
00:07:56,945 --> 00:08:03,217
unclarities seem unintentional. But
sometimes people use unclearity to hide

89
00:08:03,217 --> 00:08:09,819
problems with their argument, to try to
fool you. So imagine, a politician says we

90
00:08:09,819 --> 00:08:16,257
need to stop our enemies and stand by our
friends, so we must remain strong and

91
00:08:16,257 --> 00:08:22,775
resolute. Well, if somebody starts arguing
like that, you ought to be asking

92
00:08:22,775 --> 00:08:28,220
yourself, who do they think our friends
are? Who do they think our enemies are?

93
00:08:28,220 --> 00:08:33,097
What do they mean, stop our enemies? Are
they calling for military action? How do

94
00:08:33,097 --> 00:08:37,913
they think we ought to stop our enemies?
And standing by our friends. Does that

95
00:08:37,913 --> 00:08:42,791
mean we ought to support'em, no matter
what they do? There are lots of questions

96
00:08:42,791 --> 00:08:47,669
that you would want to ask, to clarify
exactly which claim is being made before

97
00:08:47,669 --> 00:08:52,423
you accept something like this. Here's
another claim that might be made by an

98
00:08:52,423 --> 00:08:57,240
opponent of the first politician. We have
to help the needy. Well, wait a minute.

99
00:08:57,240 --> 00:09:02,246
Which people are needy? I mean everybody
needs something. How needy to you have to

100
00:09:02,246 --> 00:09:07,315
be needy? And we ought to help the needy.
Well how are we gonna help them? Does that

101
00:09:07,315 --> 00:09:12,075
mean we just give them what ever they
want, or what are we suppose to give them?

102
00:09:12,075 --> 00:09:17,267
And when are we suppose to give them an d
how much are we willing to spend on giving

103
00:09:17,267 --> 00:09:22,274
it to them? Politicians on both sides of
the political spectrum make vague claims

104
00:09:22,274 --> 00:09:26,786
that need to clarified before you should
be willing to endorse one or the other of

105
00:09:26,786 --> 00:09:32,408
those claims. If you try to decide what to
believe before you know exactly what the

106
00:09:32,408 --> 00:09:37,915
claim means, before you've calrified it,
you can end up commiting yourself to all

107
00:09:37,915 --> 00:09:43,009
kinds on nonsense and all kinds of very
problematic positions. You can get

108
00:09:43,009 --> 00:09:48,171
yourself in to a lot of trouble. That's
why we need to clarify the terms in

109
00:09:48,171 --> 00:09:53,424
arguments. Now, one special way in which
premises need to be clarified, is that

110
00:09:53,424 --> 00:09:58,534
they need to be broken up into smaller
parts, where you can do that. And the

111
00:09:58,534 --> 00:10:04,052
point of this, is that the smaller parts
are going to be easier to understand, and

112
00:10:04,052 --> 00:10:09,298
easier to assess for whether they're true
or not. So, step four, to clarify the

113
00:10:09,298 --> 00:10:14,726
premises, belongs together with step five,
break up the premises into parts. What

114
00:10:14,726 --> 00:10:20,980
needs to be broken up? Well, the explicit
premises and sometimes the conclusion as

115
00:10:20,980 --> 00:10:27,465
well. Here's a simple example. That shirt
looks great on you and it's on sale, so

116
00:10:27,465 --> 00:10:34,752
you ought to buy it. We might put that in
standard form like this. That shirt looks

117
00:10:34,752 --> 00:10:40,368
great on you and it's on sale is the
premise and the conclusion is you ought to

118
00:10:40,368 --> 00:10:46,748
buy it. But notice that the premise has
two parts, joined by an and. So we could

119
00:10:46,748 --> 00:10:52,900
break them up and have the first premise,
that shirt looks great on you, and the

120
00:10:52,900 --> 00:10:58,740
second premise it's on sale and then the
conclusion is you ought to buy it."

121
00:10:59,880 --> 00:11:05,243
Breaking up like that is supposed to make
it easier to assess the premise for truth

122
00:11:05,243 --> 00:11:10,804
or falsehood. Now in this case it doesn't
make it much easier cause it was so simple

123
00:11:10,804 --> 00:11:16,300
to begin with, but we'll see that breaking
up premises will really help when we get

124
00:11:16,300 --> 00:11:21,464
to more complex examples. So, it makes
sense to break up premises. Well, at least

125
00:11:21,464 --> 00:11:26,562
sometimes. We should not break up premises
when breaking them up distorts the

126
00:11:26,562 --> 00:11:31,518
argument. Here's an example of that. We
still need to add either one more cup

127
00:11:31,518 --> 00:11:37,253
white of suger, or one more cup of brown
sugar to complete the recipe. So we've got

128
00:11:37,253 --> 00:11:43,198
to add another cup of ingredients. Now one
way to represent that argument would be to

129
00:11:43,198 --> 00:11:48,794
say the premise is, we still need to add
one more cup of white sugar, or one more

130
00:11:48,794 --> 00:11:54,600
cup of brown sugar, and the conclusion is,
we have another cup of ingredients to add.

131
00:11:55,280 --> 00:12:00,585
But we can break it up cuz it's got parts.
We can change the argument into we still

132
00:12:00,585 --> 00:12:05,699
need to add one more cup of white sugar.
That's the first premise, and the second

133
00:12:05,699 --> 00:12:11,133
premise is we still need to add one cup of
brown sugar. And then the conclusion is we

134
00:12:11,133 --> 00:12:16,311
have one more cup of ingredients to add,
but that argument doesn't make any sense.

135
00:12:16,311 --> 00:12:21,552
If we've got to add one of white and one
of brown, we don't just have one more cup

136
00:12:21,552 --> 00:12:26,730
of ingredients to add. And as always we're
supposed to be making the argument look

137
00:12:26,730 --> 00:12:33,888
good and that change made it look bad. And
the problem is that here we broke up the

138
00:12:33,888 --> 00:12:39,946
word or. Because it's one cup of white or
one cup of brown and presumably you didn't

139
00:12:39,946 --> 00:12:44,967
know which it was, or maybe you had a
choice between the two but you weren't

140
00:12:44,967 --> 00:12:50,119
suppose to add both. That would be too
much, and the word or signals that. So in

141
00:12:50,119 --> 00:12:55,442
general, you should not break up when the
word that joins the two is or, but it's

142
00:12:55,442 --> 00:13:00,851
okay to break up when the word that joins
the two is and. You still got to be

143
00:13:00,851 --> 00:13:06,120
careful about context. It's not always
goint to work that way, but as a general

144
00:13:06,120 --> 00:13:11,740
rule you know, that usually works. Other
cases are even trickier. One particularly

145
00:13:11,740 --> 00:13:17,211
problematic case is dependent clauses.
Here's an example. Nancy finished all her

146
00:13:17,211 --> 00:13:22,541
homework because all she had to do was
write 25 lines of poetry, and she wrote

147
00:13:22,541 --> 00:13:28,502
two sonnets, which have fourteen lines
each. The dependent clauses, which have

148
00:13:28,502 --> 00:13:34,653
fourteen lines each. And the question is,
how do we fit that into standard form.

149
00:13:34,653 --> 00:13:40,172
Well, here's one stab. The first premise
can say, all she had to do is write 25

150
00:13:40,172 --> 00:13:45,621
lines of poetry. And the second premise
can be, she wrote two sonnets which have

151
00:13:45,621 --> 00:13:50,449
fourteen lines each. And then the
conclusion is, Nancy finished all her

152
00:13:50,449 --> 00:13:56,753
homework. Now the question is can we break
up that second premis e into two different

153
00:13:56,753 --> 00:14:01,729
parts? It seems like we can. We should be
able to represent the argument. So the

154
00:14:01,729 --> 00:14:06,210
first premise is, all she had to do is
write 25 lines of poetry and the second

155
00:14:06,210 --> 00:14:10,920
premise says she wrote two sonnets and the
third premise is sonnets have fourteen

156
00:14:10,920 --> 00:14:15,310
lines each and the conclusion is she
finished all her homework. In this case,

157
00:14:15,310 --> 00:14:20,226
breaking down the premise actually helps
us understand and asses it. Because we can

158
00:14:20,226 --> 00:14:24,787
decide whether it's really true, for
example, that sonnets have fourteen lines

159
00:14:24,787 --> 00:14:29,466
each. That's going to be a question. If
the answer is no, then the argument might

160
00:14:29,466 --> 00:14:33,909
fail. The answer is yes, at least for
standard sonnets. So the argument looks

161
00:14:33,909 --> 00:14:38,947
pretty good. Contrast that example with
this one. Our legal system isn't fair

162
00:14:38,947 --> 00:14:44,019
because authorities go easy on white
collar criminals who have been allowed to

163
00:14:44,019 --> 00:14:48,954
get away with their crimes in recent
years. Well the premise, could be,

164
00:14:48,954 --> 00:14:54,556
authorities go easy on criminals who've
been allowed to get away with their crimes

165
00:14:54,556 --> 00:14:59,618
in recent years. And, the conclusion is,
our legal system isn't fair. Now the

166
00:14:59,618 --> 00:15:05,085
question is, can we break up that first
premise, cuz it has the dependent clause,

167
00:15:05,085 --> 00:15:11,328
who've been allowed to get away with their
crimes in recent years. Well that depends,

168
00:15:11,328 --> 00:15:17,235
because the person giving the argument
might be saying that authorities go easy

169
00:15:17,235 --> 00:15:22,676
on all white collar criminals. And, they
might be saying that authorities only go

170
00:15:22,676 --> 00:15:27,968
easy on a certain subset of white collar
criminals, namely the subset they've been

171
00:15:27,968 --> 00:15:33,002
allowed to get away with their crimes in
recent years. If the premises now all

172
00:15:33,002 --> 00:15:37,714
white collar criminals, then we can break
it up so that one premises says

173
00:15:37,714 --> 00:15:42,812
authorities go easy on white collar
criminals, and the next premise says white

174
00:15:42,812 --> 00:15:48,040
collar criminals have been allowed to get
away with their crimes in recent years.

175
00:15:48,040 --> 00:15:52,640
But if the arguer is only talking about
some white collar criminals, and admits

176
00:15:52,640 --> 00:15:57,591
that other white collar criminals have not
been allowed to get away with their crime,

177
00:15:57,591 --> 00:16:02,133
then he's only saying that authorities go
easy on those white collar criminals who

178
00:16:02,133 --> 00:16:06,501
have been allowed to get away with their
crime, that subset of white collar

179
00:16:06,501 --> 00:16:11,277
criminals. And then it would distort the
argument to break it up, because if you do

180
00:16:11,277 --> 00:16:16,111
break it up then that second premise says
white collar criminals have been allowed

181
00:16:16,111 --> 00:16:21,677
to get away with their crimes in recent
years. And if some of them haven't, then

182
00:16:21,677 --> 00:16:27,476
that premise turns out to be false. So if
you break it up you can criticize it by

183
00:16:27,476 --> 00:16:32,415
pointing out that it doesn't really apply
to all white collar criminals, but if you

184
00:16:32,415 --> 00:16:37,413
leave it as a single premise then it's not
subject to that criticism, so if you want

185
00:16:37,413 --> 00:16:42,071
to be charitable, you probably ought to
keep this premise together. Unless you

186
00:16:42,071 --> 00:16:47,126
know, on independent grounds, that the
person was making that claim about all

187
00:16:47,126 --> 00:16:52,093
white collar criminals and not just a
subset. So to make that argument look

188
00:16:52,093 --> 00:16:57,553
better we don't break up the premise and
the general lesson is that with dependent

189
00:16:57,553 --> 00:17:02,881
clauses like that and with and who, you
have to look very carefully to figure out

190
00:17:02,881 --> 00:17:08,209
what the speaker wanted to say and what's
going to make their argument look best.

191
00:17:08,209 --> 00:17:13,471
And use that information to determine
whether or not break up the premise. There

192
00:17:13,471 --> 00:17:18,865
are no air tight rules as always, so we
need to do a few exercises to practice the