Etymology[ edit ] The Latin root arguere to make bright, enlighten, make known, prove, etc.
References and Further Reading 1. The Structural Approach to Characterizing Arguments Not any group of propositions qualifies as an argument.
The starting point for structural approaches is the thesis that the premises of an argument are reasons offered in support of its conclusion for example, Govierp. Accordingly, a collection of propositions lacks the structure of an argument unless there is a reasoner who puts forward some as reasons in support of one of them.
Letting P1, P2, P3, …, and C range over propositions and R over reasoners, a structural Arguments about philosophy of argument takes the following form.
A collection of propositions, P1, …, Pn, C, is an argument if and only if there is a reasoner R who puts forward the Pi as reasons in support of C. The structure of an argument is not a function of the syntactic and semantic features of the propositions that compose it.
Rather, it is imposed on these propositions by the intentions of a reasoner to use some as support for one of them. Typically in presenting an argument, a reasoner will use expressions to flag the intended structural components of her argument.
Typical premise indicators include: Different accounts of the nature of the intended support offered by the premises for the conclusion in an argument generate different structural characterizations of arguments for discussion see Hitchcock Plausibly, if a reasoner R puts forward premises in support of a conclusion C, then i - iii obtain.
If we judge that a reasoner R presents an argument as defined above, then by the lights of i - iii we believe that R believes that the premises justify belief in the truth of the conclusion. In what immediately follows, examples are given to explicate i - iii.
John is an only child. John is not an only child; he said that Mary is his sister. If B presents an argument, then the following obtain.
If the Democrats and Republicans are not willing to compromise, then the U. Therefore, it is unlikely that B puts forward the Democrats and Republicans are not willing to compromise as a reason in support of the U.
The results of the test are in. Bill will be at the party, because Bill will be at the party. Suppose that B believes that Bill will be at the party. Trivially, the truth of this proposition makes it more likely than not that he will be at the party. Nevertheless, B is not presenting an argument. Clearly, B does not offer a reason for Bill will be at the party that is independent of this.
Regarding iiibthat Obama is U. This difference marks a structural distinction between arguments. Suppose that a reasoner R offers  and  as reasons in support of .Feb 16, · Before we dive into the big questions of philosophy, you need to know how to argue properly. We’ll start with an overview of philosophical reasoning and breakdown of how deductive arguments work.
If God already knows the choices we will make in the future, can we be free? Arguments and Philosophical Reasoning Posted by: This lesson plan, created by Stuart Gluck and Carlos Rodriguez, is part of a series of lesson plans in Philosophy in Education: Questioning and Dialogue in Schools, by Jana Mohr Lone and Michael D.
Burroughs (Rowman & Littlefield, ). B offers a reason,  the primary function of arguments, unlike explanations, is persuasion, for the thesis  no explanation is an argument. Since B asserts neither  nor , B .
In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements (in a natural language), called the premises or premisses (both spellings are acceptable) Deductive arguments are sometimes referred to as "truth-preserving" arguments. A deductive argument is said to be valid or invalid.
Philosophy is the practice of making and assessing arguments. An argument is a set of statements (called premises) that work together to support another statement (the conclusion).
Making and assessing arguments can help us get closer to understanding the truth.