In general, I think understanding the concept of deciding whether or not an argument was good or not. I think part of the reason I do not understand the concept is that there is so much “repetition”. False premise, false conclusion. False premise, true conclusion. Everything just starts to look the same, if you ask me. Then there’s plausibility of the claim which basically if the claim is believable or not. If someone came up to you and told you that the sky is yellow, the you would come to the conclusion that the premise presented is not plausible and then false. The there is the conclusion follows from the premise. There has to be a connection between the two. You cannot just say that Nancy is a girl. She is a bitch. There is no real connection. If you say Nancy girl. She says a lot of mean things about people. She is a bitch. Then there is a connection between the premises and the conclusion.
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. There is a ton of similarities between arguments that are weak and strong. If you're not reading the book quite a lot, it's easy to forget the many different forms of reasoning that are associated with each type of argument. Just one tiny difference in wording can change an argument from a "strong and valid" argument, to a "weak and bad" argument. That's solely just focusing on premises and conclusions, that doesn't even factor in other fallacies, generalities, and conditionals. Good post though overall, this class can be a bit confusing at times. Also, good use of examples to further illustrate your point. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDelete