Construction of Your Argument > Conclusion of Your Argument

Luke 11:54 - "Laying wait for Him, and seeking to catch something out of His mouth, that they might accuse Him."

In order to fuel my newly-forged desire to be an autodidact, I took it upon myself to buy a book teaching me basic philosophy. I absolutely loved it. It helped that it was a cartoon guide to basic philosophy, but hey.

My friend and I started discussing some of the things I'd learned from this book during an FHE.

Our conversation resulted in me coming up with the idea for this blog post.

You see, one of the first topics discussed in this book is deductive reasoning. The idea behind deductive reasoning is that a series of premises are required to form an argument. Once all the premises are sound, then your conclusion is sound.

For example.

Premise A: All clothes are made of fabric.

Premise B: All fabric is made of textiles.

Conclusion: Therefore, all clothes are made out of textiles.

The problem is, if a premise is false, then the conclusion becomes undermined.

Premise A: All ukuleles are pianos.

Premise B: All pianos are musical instruments.

Conclusion: Therefore, all ukuleles are musical instruments.

As you can see, the conclusion for the last set of premises was true. However, its first premise was false. Ukuleles are simply not pianos. The faulty logic in the argument makes the conclusion null and void. After all, if an argument is built upon a foundation of premises, and if one of the premises is cracked, then the entire structure will fall.

Cool, you may be thinking. What's that got to do with me?

To use a minor example, I have often discussed things like TV shows and movies with people. "Ew," someone might say. "You like that? Well, I hate it. It's not a very good show."

This is how their argument is organized at this point in the conversation.

Premise A: ???

Premise B: ???

Conclusion: Subject: [TV Show] is not a good show.

I generally genuinely want to know their reasoning for why they disagree with my tastes. So, I'll ask them.

"I don't know," they might say. "I just don't like it," they might say. "Either way, it's a bad show."

Premise A: I don't know why Subject: [TV Show] is not a very good show.

Premise B: I just don't like Subject: [TV Show].

Conclusion: Subject: [TV Show] is not a good show.

Now, I'm not saying that their premises are wrong, but they are weak. Incredibly so. They fail to accurately support the conclusion, which renders their entire foundation unstable. People are allowed to have opinions, but when their opinions are held up by faulty premises, then everything falls apart.

In our TV show example, I would have accepted premises like, "I didn't like the acting," or, "I thought the plot line was weak," or, "I had a hard time relating to the main characters." Even then, an encompassing conclusion like, "Subject: [TV Show] is not a good show" may be too absolute. An even better conclusion might be, "I don't find Subject: [TV Show] to be a good show."

What's the real point?

So many times, I see people express their opinions, whether its online, in a public forum, or among friends. Opinions are wonderful things. However, I too often see these same opinions presented as fact. As opposed to wording opinions like, "I don't like [Current Political Leader]," they might voice opinions like, "[Current Political Leader] is the worst thing that ever happened to this country."

Great. Now what are your premises for this conclusion?

People are allowed to have opinions, but the second their conclusions are presented as absolutes, then they need to cough up well-crafted premises. If not, then their conclusions lose their power, and crumble before scrutiny.

You may believe something that goes against every belief I personally have. Regardless, if you can defend your conclusion well, I will respect you every time. At the same time, if your premises are weak, flimsy, or outright false, you can't expect me to take you seriously, even when your conclusions are 100% true.