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.