Tools of Philosophy

Stating what you believe is not the same as defending it.  Sometimes we see a position attacked not on the facts, but on a personal level.  For example:  One who believes that social spending should be adjusted might here be told "that they hate the poor."  The one who thinks national defense spending should be adjusted might hear that they "hate the country," or "don’t care if we as a country are attacked."

The response the initial premises are really not related but instead shift the focus from the facts of the position to that of an attack. Perhaps the most useful tool of the philosopher is the argument.  This is NOT to be confused with the argumentative person, that is one who stirs up verbal strife or verbal wars without considering much relevant data.  All have encountered the person who presents their position something like this:  “I know what I believe and the facts (or the truth) will not make me change my mind.”  This not argumentation, this is not debate, it is opinion.

Argumentation (the act of presenting an argument) is to present facts in a systematic fashion, either building on each other or as a whole allowing a conclusion to be reached.  The perfect argument has no speculation, but some can make its way into the argument.  The result is the facts lead logically to the conclusion.  The simplest has two premises and a conclusion.  Complex arguments can have many premises.  The premise is a statement of fact or some speculation.  If speculative, the conclusion must be speculative.  Some frogs are small, does not mean all frogs are small.

Aristotle introduced Deductive Reasoning, where the general premises lead to the specific.  This has been the standard for countless decades and generations.  Detectives use the same idea, clue 1, clue 2, clue 3, clue 4 examined lead to the conclusion.  Example 1+2=3 add 4 = conclusion.

A specific form of Deductive Reasoning has been developed that suits some needs of philosophical inquiry.  This is called the Deductive Syllogism.  The syllogism has two premises, each one with two parts or phrases.  Each phrase is called a "term."  The premises when put together, following established rules will yield the conclusion, also with two terms.  Thus the syllogism has three lines, the two premises a,d the conclusion. 

Inductive Reasoning leads us in a different direction; A good inductive argument will have a highly probable conclusion.  This moves into an area of probability, with the conclusion not being True or False, but adequate or inadequate.  The conclusion at best is probably true.

Many may claim that a certain belief is or is not “scientific.”  Oddly enough, that can be very true.  Personal values often have little to do with science, but personal observations, and perhaps emotion.  Put these together with the ability to sense things in human behavior, most call this “intuition.”  Here again, not a scientific principle at all. 

But the concept of science comes up many times, earlier in history (1870’s or so) great strides were made in the realm of science, more was yet to come.  Many who disbelieved in anything or type of God now used science as an excuse to not believe.  That statement survives today.  The scientific method or reasoning has these parts:

1)      Formulating a statement carefully and clearly.

2)      Predicting the implications of such a belief.

3)      Performing controlled experiments to confirm or refute these implications.

4)      Accepting or rejection the initial statement as a result.

A key point here is that ALL of these steps must be repeatable, all of them.  Changing any part negates the process, once established.

No one method will be conclusive in the quest for truth or answers, but working together it is entirely possible to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Will the conclusion fit into the individual value system?

The construction of the argument usually makes use of deductive reasoning, but other elements may be used.  Portions may involve recreating the events in question.  Sometimes a mix of inductive and deductive reasoning is applied. 

In using logic, and deductive reasoning, some important rules need to be applied.  Since Deductive Syllogisms are used frequently, these rules apply to syllogisms followed by a flaw or fallacy if misused:

Ø  Two premises are used, each with two terms or phrases

Ø  One Conclusion shall be presented

Ø  Of the four terms in the premises, one term is to be repeated, allowing for a total of three terms. (Fallacy of Four Terms)

Ø  No term is to be used in an equivocal sense (Fallacy of Equivocation)

Ø  The repeated term (or middle term) is to be distributed at least once in the premises, using the word “all” or “no.” (Fallacy of the undistributed Middle Term)

Ø  No term can be distributed in the conclusion that is not distributed in the premises

§  If this occurs involving the first premise, this is the Fallacy of the Illicit Major

§  If this occurs involving the second premise, this is the Fallacy of the Illicit Minor

Ø  The syllogism or argument is invalid with two negative premises (Fallacy of the Exclusive Premises)

Ø  If one premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative

Ø  For an affirmative conclusion to be valid, both premises must affirm class inclusion. (Fallacy of drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a negative Premise)

Ø  A particular conclusion cannot have two universal premises

§  Suggests more than two premises

§  Universal combinations suggest or lead to a conclusion devoid of needed information

§  Boolean logic flow leads to logic flaws; extrapolates additional premises

§  (Existential Fallacy)

Ø  Two unrelated ideas is Non-Sequiter

Ø  Forcing a decision with an extreme or absurd opposite is False Dichotomy

Ø  Attacking the person rather than the premise is Ad Hominem

Ø  Using small numbers to represent the whole is hasty Generalization

Ø  Assuming one premise is true is Begging the Question

Ø  Occurring before the cause is Post Hoc-False  Cause

Ø  When the questioner need not prove much or anything is Burden of Proof Reversal

Ø  Insisting that because of ignorance, premise must be true is Ad Ignoratum Fallacy

Ø  Insisting that a popular premise is true is bandwagon Fallacy

Ø  To exaggerate the claim or premise to make it easier to attack is Stawman Fallacy

Avoiding logic flaws is important.  Referring back to a priori and a posteriori statements, it is important not to confuse these.  A personal value system need not be well supported for the adherent to believe it, but it needs to be well supported to share this with others.

One may return to this simple statement frequently, “Why do you believe what you believe.”  The philosopher and the study of philosophy will provide tools that will help to answer this all important question.

Let the learning continue.