Arguments — Part 2 of 2 But there are also arguments that without being so good as our first, are sometimes good enough. (1) All Simpsons are yellow (2) Homer is yellow (3) Hence, Homer is a Simpson Now, this argument is definitely better than the cookie’s argument, but isn’t as good as the first because sentence (3) doesn’t necessarily follow from (1) and (2). But it isn’t so bad, because in the light of the information we have, it shows that it is at least possible for Homer to be a Simpson. And as a matter of fact, he is. It’s clear, though, that this argument doesn’t guarantee the truth of the conclusion when we test another case. (1) All Simpsons are yellow (2) Oddie is yellow (3) Thus, Oddie is a Simpson With the same reasoning we reached a false conclusion. This kind of argument is better known as abduction and we will more about it in the future. For now we must say that it is very useful for probabilistic reasoning because it shows a possible, although not necessary conclusion. But some schemes of reasoning are completely wrong like: (1) All Simpsons are yellow (2) Garfield is not yellow (3) Therefore, Garfield is a Simpson In this case, the first two premises show that there is no way for Garfield to be a Simpson because all Simpsons are yellow and he is not —he’s orange. So he can’t be a Simpson. But the fact that the conclusion of an argument is false doesn’t mean that is bad. An argument can have a false premise or a false conclusion and still be a good argument because what matters in arguments are not the facts, but the chain of reasoning connecting them, like in this argument. (1) All cats are orange (2) Oddie is a cat (3) Thus, Oddie is orange. Here, sentence (3) necessarily follows from sentences (1) and (2), this is a very good argument because the chain of reasoning that takes us from the premises to the conclusion is perfect. But given that the premises are false, we don’t have any reason to believe the conclusion. One more thing, there are two standards to evaluate arguments: deductive and inductive. Now, if you think that deduction goes from the more general to the more specific and induction from the more specific to the more general. Well, you must definitely see my videos on the subject, because those are long outdated definitions…

Arguments — Part 1 of 2 Arguments are everywhere: science, philosophy, religion, politics, business, and, of course, in everyday’s life. But I want to make clear from the beginning that I’m not referring to these arguments… In an argument we have a series of statements from which one is the conclusion that the others, the premises, try to establish. Let’s see an example. (1) All Simpsons are yellow (2) Lisa Simpson is a Simpson (3) Therefore, Lisa Simpson is yellow In this case, sentences (1) and (2) are our premises, and they give us reasons to believe in sentence (3), the conclusion. This is a very good argument because it follows necessarily that if all Simpsons are yellow and Lisa is a Simpson, Lisa must be yellow. Now, the magic word that transforms this series of sentences into an argument is therefore, because it indicates that the following sentence is the conclusion. Otherwise, this would be just a bunch of sentences with no connection whatsoever. But this implies that the following is also an argument: (1) I like cookies. (2) Thus, you must obey me. In this case, the word thus indicates that the fact that I have a beard is reason enough for you to obey me. But even when this is an argument, that doesn’t mean it’s a good argument. This could be considered a fallacy of (ir)relevance, because the fact that I like cookies has no connection with obedience.