WEBVTT

00:00:02.380 --> 00:00:06.604
We're right in the middle of
reconstruction. We did stage one last

00:00:06.604 --> 00:00:11.485
week, cuz that's just close analysis. In
the previous section we did stage two,

00:00:11.485 --> 00:00:16.746
which is to remove excess verbiage, and to
put the explicit premises and conclusion

00:00:16.746 --> 00:00:21.690
into standard form. And this lecture is
going to focus on stage three, which is

00:00:21.690 --> 00:00:27.078
the clarify the premises and to break them
up. Where it's possible without distorting

00:00:27.078 --> 00:00:31.705
them. Let's start with step four, which is
to clarify the premises and the

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

00:00:37.375 --> 00:00:42.900
them easier to understand, or to make them
less likely to mislead, and all that

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

00:00:49.181 --> 00:00:58.045
probably be hot tomorrow again. And we
need to clarify that. What exactly counts

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

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

00:01:10.482 --> 00:01:15.780
was it today, and how hot will it be
tomorrow? And what, after all, is heat?

00:01:15.780 --> 00:01:20.444
And what about, it'll probably be hot
tomorrow? Probability. That's a tough

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

00:01:25.492 --> 00:01:30.284
are different kinds of probability, and I
want to know what kind you're talking

00:01:30.284 --> 00:01:35.268
about here. And when you ask for example,
about it will be hot tomorrow, what is,

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

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

00:01:45.364 --> 00:01:50.761
asking how to clarify that argument. But
that's ridiculous, you know. We don't have

00:01:50.761 --> 00:01:56.498
to clarify a simple argument like it was
hot today so it will probably be hot

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

00:02:01.583 --> 00:02:05.948
we couldn't because after all when you
explain one of the words or give a

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

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

00:02:15.209 --> 00:02:19.928
perfect clarity and absolute precision is
impossible. You'll never complete that

00:02:19.928 --> 00:02:24.805
search. You'll never find perfect clarity
or absolute precision, so give it up. What

00:02:24.805 --> 00:02:29.975
we should seek is not absolute precision,
but adequate precision. Not absolute

00:02:29.975 --> 00:02:35.077
clarity, but adequate clarity. And that
means that we ought to try to clear up

00:02:35.077 --> 00:02:40.448
those parts of the premises and conclusion
that are likely to produce confusion

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

00:02:45.819 --> 00:02:50.961
needs to be clarified, because people are
going to get confused by it. Now that's

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

00:02:56.069 --> 00:03:00.725
needs to be clarified, and what doesn't
need to be clarified. The only way to

00:03:00.725 --> 00:03:06.028
learn this skill is to go through some
examples that will give you models of what

00:03:06.028 --> 00:03:11.717
needs to be clarified and what doesn't.
Sometimes, you know, in clarity lies in a

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

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

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

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?

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

00:03:44.836 --> 00:03:50.335
mean prescription drugs? I don't think
she's telling you not to follow the advice

00:03:50.335 --> 00:03:56.019
of your doctor and use the prescriptions
that the doctor told you to take. So that

00:03:56.019 --> 00:04:03.960
can't be what she means. Well, maybe she
means illegal drugs. Okay. Maybe she means

00:04:03.960 --> 00:04:08.679
illegal drugs. What about heroin or
cocaine? Yes, that's what she is telling

00:04:08.679 --> 00:04:14.036
you not to do. She is definitely telling
you not to take illegal drugs, but then

00:04:14.036 --> 00:04:19.329
there are some things in the middle. She
might be telling you not to take dangerous

00:04:19.329 --> 00:04:24.240
drugs whether they are illegal or not.
What about nicotine? What about alcohol?

00:04:24.240 --> 00:04:29.680
Those are both dangerous drugs, at least
when you use in excess. Alcohol is very

00:04:29.680 --> 00:04:34.982
dangerous, and smoking can lead to lung
cancer, and that's how most people get

00:04:34.982 --> 00:04:40.491
nicotine. So maybe she's telling you not
to take nico tine or alcohol in addition

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?

00:04:46.000 --> 00:04:52.552
Well, you want Nancy Reagan's claim to
look as good as possible. Remember, you're

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

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

00:05:05.005 --> 00:05:10.100
claiming, in addition to heroin and
cocaine, you shouldn't take alcohol and

00:05:10.100 --> 00:05:15.435
nicotine. But probably, or at least more
plausibly, she's telling you not to take

00:05:15.435 --> 00:05:21.122
illegal drugs. She had to chose between
interpreting her and saying don't take any

00:05:21.122 --> 00:05:26.393
illegal drugs and don't take any dangerous
drugs. And it's seems like a more

00:05:26.393 --> 00:05:32.010
charitable interpretation that makes her
claim look more plausible is don't take

00:05:32.010 --> 00:05:37.003
any illegal drugs. So we could clarify her
claim, just say no to drugs, by

00:05:37.003 --> 00:05:42.566
interpreting it to mean you ought to not
to take any illegal drugs. So in general

00:05:42.566 --> 00:05:47.671
then, the lesson is that, when there are
options about how to clarify a certain

00:05:47.671 --> 00:05:52.383
sentence, we ought to pick the most
charitable option that makes the claim

00:05:52.383 --> 00:05:58.047
look as good as possible. Here's another
example, where the unclarity can be traced

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

00:06:03.700 --> 00:06:09.424
refers to. So imagine that someone argues
like this. Let's say, she claims, that our

00:06:09.424 --> 00:06:15.780
strategy won't work, because the enemy
knows our plan, but that is a big mistake.

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

00:06:25.900 --> 00:06:30.787
that the enemy knows our plan. If someone
says, that's a mistake, they might be

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

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

00:06:41.422 --> 00:06:46.508
think our strategy won't work. Or, they
could be saying that the mistake is to

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

00:06:52.359 --> 00:06:57.090
saying, it's not that it won't work
because the enemy knows the plan. Or,

00:06:57.090 --> 00:07:02.354
here's a fourth possibility. He could be
saying, that is a mistake to think that

00:07:02.354 --> 00:07:08.522
she claims that, that's not what she
claims. So, there are four different ways

00:07:08.522 --> 00:07:15.096
to interpret, this argument, and in order
to figure out how to interpret it, we have

00:07:15.096 --> 00:07:21.097
to figure out which of those is most
likely as an interpretation of what the

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

00:07:27.465 --> 00:07:31.891
look the best. Now in this example it's
not clear which interpretation is the

00:07:31.891 --> 00:07:36.095
best, because someone might give that
argument in a context where they're saying

00:07:36.095 --> 00:07:40.300
the mistake is to think she claims that.
But in other cases they might be saying

00:07:40.300 --> 00:07:44.347
that the mistake is to think that the
enemy knows our plan. They don't really

00:07:44.347 --> 00:07:48.446
know our plan, and in other cases that
might be claiming that other things are

00:07:48.446 --> 00:07:52.388
mistaken. So, we need to figure out what
the person is saying, but that could

00:07:52.388 --> 00:07:56.945
depend on the particular context. It might
vary from context to context. Now these

00:07:56.945 --> 00:08:03.217
unclarities seem unintentional. But
sometimes people use unclearity to hide

00:08:03.217 --> 00:08:09.819
problems with their argument, to try to
fool you. So imagine, a politician says we

00:08:09.819 --> 00:08:16.257
need to stop our enemies and stand by our
friends, so we must remain strong and

00:08:16.257 --> 00:08:22.775
resolute. Well, if somebody starts arguing
like that, you ought to be asking

00:08:22.775 --> 00:08:28.220
yourself, who do they think our friends
are? Who do they think our enemies are?

00:08:28.220 --> 00:08:33.097
What do they mean, stop our enemies? Are
they calling for military action? How do

00:08:33.097 --> 00:08:37.913
they think we ought to stop our enemies?
And standing by our friends. Does that

00:08:37.913 --> 00:08:42.791
mean we ought to support'em, no matter
what they do? There are lots of questions

00:08:42.791 --> 00:08:47.669
that you would want to ask, to clarify
exactly which claim is being made before

00:08:47.669 --> 00:08:52.423
you accept something like this. Here's
another claim that might be made by an

00:08:52.423 --> 00:08:57.240
opponent of the first politician. We have
to help the needy. Well, wait a minute.

00:08:57.240 --> 00:09:02.246
Which people are needy? I mean everybody
needs something. How needy to you have to

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

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?

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

00:09:17.267 --> 00:09:22.274
it to them? Politicians on both sides of
the political spectrum make vague claims

00:09:22.274 --> 00:09:26.786
that need to clarified before you should
be willing to endorse one or the other of

00:09:26.786 --> 00:09:32.408
those claims. If you try to decide what to
believe before you know exactly what the

00:09:32.408 --> 00:09:37.915
claim means, before you've calrified it,
you can end up commiting yourself to all

00:09:37.915 --> 00:09:43.009
kinds on nonsense and all kinds of very
problematic positions. You can get

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

00:09:48.171 --> 00:09:53.424
arguments. Now, one special way in which
premises need to be clarified, is that

00:09:53.424 --> 00:09:58.534
they need to be broken up into smaller
parts, where you can do that. And the

00:09:58.534 --> 00:10:04.052
point of this, is that the smaller parts
are going to be easier to understand, and

00:10:04.052 --> 00:10:09.298
easier to assess for whether they're true
or not. So, step four, to clarify the

00:10:09.298 --> 00:10:14.726
premises, belongs together with step five,
break up the premises into parts. What

00:10:14.726 --> 00:10:20.980
needs to be broken up? Well, the explicit
premises and sometimes the conclusion as

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

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

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

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

00:10:46.748 --> 00:10:52.900
break them up and have the first premise,
that shirt looks great on you, and the

00:10:52.900 --> 00:10:58.740
second premise it's on sale and then the
conclusion is you ought to buy it."

00:10:59.880 --> 00:11:05.243
Breaking up like that is supposed to make
it easier to assess the premise for truth

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

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

00:11:16.300 --> 00:11:21.464
to more complex examples. So, it makes
sense to break up premises. Well, at least

00:11:21.464 --> 00:11:26.562
sometimes. We should not break up premises
when breaking them up distorts the

00:11:26.562 --> 00:11:31.518
argument. Here's an example of that. We
still need to add either one more cup

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

00:11:37.253 --> 00:11:43.198
to add another cup of ingredients. Now one
way to represent that argument would be to

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

00:11:48.794 --> 00:11:54.600
cup of brown sugar, and the conclusion is,
we have another cup of ingredients to add.

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

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

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

00:12:11.133 --> 00:12:16.311
have one more cup of ingredients to add,
but that argument doesn't make any sense.

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

00:12:21.552 --> 00:12:26.730
of ingredients to add. And as always we're
supposed to be making the argument look

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

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

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

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

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

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

00:13:00.851 --> 00:13:06.120
careful about context. It's not always
goint to work that way, but as a general

00:13:06.120 --> 00:13:11.740
rule you know, that usually works. Other
cases are even trickier. One particularly

00:13:11.740 --> 00:13:17.211
problematic case is dependent clauses.
Here's an example. Nancy finished all her

00:13:17.211 --> 00:13:22.541
homework because all she had to do was
write 25 lines of poetry, and she wrote

00:13:22.541 --> 00:13:28.502
two sonnets, which have fourteen lines
each. The dependent clauses, which have

00:13:28.502 --> 00:13:34.653
fourteen lines each. And the question is,
how do we fit that into standard form.

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

00:13:40.172 --> 00:13:45.621
lines of poetry. And the second premise
can be, she wrote two sonnets which have

00:13:45.621 --> 00:13:50.449
fourteen lines each. And then the
conclusion is, Nancy finished all her

00:13:50.449 --> 00:13:56.753
homework. Now the question is can we break
up that second premis e into two different

00:13:56.753 --> 00:14:01.729
parts? It seems like we can. We should be
able to represent the argument. So the

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

00:14:06.210 --> 00:14:10.920
premise says she wrote two sonnets and the
third premise is sonnets have fourteen

00:14:10.920 --> 00:14:15.310
lines each and the conclusion is she
finished all her homework. In this case,

00:14:15.310 --> 00:14:20.226
breaking down the premise actually helps
us understand and asses it. Because we can

00:14:20.226 --> 00:14:24.787
decide whether it's really true, for
example, that sonnets have fourteen lines

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

00:14:29.466 --> 00:14:33.909
fail. The answer is yes, at least for
standard sonnets. So the argument looks

00:14:33.909 --> 00:14:38.947
pretty good. Contrast that example with
this one. Our legal system isn't fair

00:14:38.947 --> 00:14:44.019
because authorities go easy on white
collar criminals who have been allowed to

00:14:44.019 --> 00:14:48.954
get away with their crimes in recent
years. Well the premise, could be,

00:14:48.954 --> 00:14:54.556
authorities go easy on criminals who've
been allowed to get away with their crimes

00:14:54.556 --> 00:14:59.618
in recent years. And, the conclusion is,
our legal system isn't fair. Now the

00:14:59.618 --> 00:15:05.085
question is, can we break up that first
premise, cuz it has the dependent clause,

00:15:05.085 --> 00:15:11.328
who've been allowed to get away with their
crimes in recent years. Well that depends,

00:15:11.328 --> 00:15:17.235
because the person giving the argument
might be saying that authorities go easy

00:15:17.235 --> 00:15:22.676
on all white collar criminals. And, they
might be saying that authorities only go

00:15:22.676 --> 00:15:27.968
easy on a certain subset of white collar
criminals, namely the subset they've been

00:15:27.968 --> 00:15:33.002
allowed to get away with their crimes in
recent years. If the premises now all

00:15:33.002 --> 00:15:37.714
white collar criminals, then we can break
it up so that one premises says

00:15:37.714 --> 00:15:42.812
authorities go easy on white collar
criminals, and the next premise says white

00:15:42.812 --> 00:15:48.040
collar criminals have been allowed to get
away with their crimes in recent years.

00:15:48.040 --> 00:15:52.640
But if the arguer is only talking about
some white collar criminals, and admits

00:15:52.640 --> 00:15:57.591
that other white collar criminals have not
been allowed to get away with their crime,

00:15:57.591 --> 00:16:02.133
then he's only saying that authorities go
easy on those white collar criminals who

00:16:02.133 --> 00:16:06.501
have been allowed to get away with their
crime, that subset of white collar

00:16:06.501 --> 00:16:11.277
criminals. And then it would distort the
argument to break it up, because if you do

00:16:11.277 --> 00:16:16.111
break it up then that second premise says
white collar criminals have been allowed

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

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

00:16:27.476 --> 00:16:32.415
pointing out that it doesn't really apply
to all white collar criminals, but if you

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

00:16:37.413 --> 00:16:42.071
to be charitable, you probably ought to
keep this premise together. Unless you

00:16:42.071 --> 00:16:47.126
know, on independent grounds, that the
person was making that claim about all

00:16:47.126 --> 00:16:52.093
white collar criminals and not just a
subset. So to make that argument look

00:16:52.093 --> 00:16:57.553
better we don't break up the premise and
the general lesson is that with dependent

00:16:57.553 --> 00:17:02.881
clauses like that and with and who, you
have to look very carefully to figure out

00:17:02.881 --> 00:17:08.209
what the speaker wanted to say and what's
going to make their argument look best.

00:17:08.209 --> 00:17:13.471
And use that information to determine
whether or not break up the premise. There

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