A useful topic that I found in chapter five called “Common Mistakes in Evaluating Premises” consists of five subtopics that are the mistakes and examples of each mistake. The first one listed is arguing backwards. The book lists arguing backwards as a mistake because if we have a strong/valid argument with a true conclusion, its premises is true. The second mistake is confusing possibility with plausibility, and it suggests that it is usually good reason to investigate a claim to see if it’s true or not. You need evidence before you can believe in what is stated. The third mistake listed is bad appeals to authority, which is when you believe the claim regardless if it’s true or not because of the person who said it. The fourth mistake is mistaking the person for the claim, and that is when we reject a claim because of the person who said, regardless if their claim was true or not. The fifth and final mistake is mistaking the person for the argument which is similar to the fourth mistake but instead you reject that person’s argument because of who they are, unlike the fourth which is when you reject their claim not their argument. All these mistakes listed with details in the book is very useful to know, because it helps us realizes the mistakes we do when we evaluate premises.
I think that your explanation for the common mistake in evaluating the false premises is very clear and easy to understand. I think that most of the time, people don't realize what is the correct way to analyze the premises. Especially for the first subtopic, arguing backward. This sound like it does make logical sense, that if we trace something backward, nothing can be wrong. However, people may not realize that in the strong argument, the premises are true. So we cannot argue against the true premises. To argue something, we have to assume that the claim is false, which does not work when it is the truth. Other examples are also great examples as well. These examples are very clear which make each mistake very easy to understand. Good job on your examples.
ReplyDeleteI like your explanations just as puppypearl said. I also think that they're very straight forward examples that don't need a lot of analyzing. I believe that the less you have to think to get something the more effective it is to getting the point across. I really liked how you broke down each thing step by step. I didn't do it like that in my blogs, but I can see now that maybe i should have. I think the only way you could make this better would be to make it in a list form instead of a paragraph, to make it even more clear, but overall it's a good place to gain knowledge on the common mistakes.
ReplyDeleteI like your explanation on common mistakes when evaluating premises. You made it very easy for someone to read and understand what you were talking about. I like how you broke it down step by step so people could get a better understanding. When I read your post I actually got a better understanding.You chose good examples to make it clear what mistakes could be made when evaluating a premise. I think this is a very useful thing that we should know and can use. Because everyone makes mistakes sometimes when evaluating premises. Like for me is could be very difficult at times. Thanks
ReplyDelete