Imagine the situation: it might be at the end of the working day, or just before you decide to head
out for the night, but you find yourself sitting around a table in the pub, and in the middle of
an argument with your mates. If you happen to be an undergraduate philosophy student like myself,
then you might also find that your working day consists solely of arguments in the pub
with your mates. Although the specifics might be different,
the ultimate goal remains the same - you want to win! So this time, let’s take a
look at some strategies and fallacies and let philosophy help you win arguments at the pub.
In philosophy, when we are talking about an argument, we mean something a bit different than
a domestic on a council estate at 3am. Rather, we are talking about a series of statements,
called premises, that are meant to prove the truth of another statement, called the conclusion.
There are several kinds of arguments, but the most common are called deductive
and inductive arguments. Deductive arguments aim to show that the conclusion logically follows from
the premises; in other words, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be
true necessarily. Deductive arguments are called valid if the conclusion does actually follow from
the premises, and invalid if it doesn’t. If the argument is valid and the premises are also true,
then we call the argument sound. Inductive arguments, on the other hand,
aim to show that the conclusion is probable, based on the strength of the premises.
Unlike a deductive argument, the premises cannot guarantee the truth of the conclusion,
only give support to how likely the conclusion is. As such, inductive arguments aren’t measured in
terms of validity, but rather how strong or weak the argument is. If the argument is strong and the
premises are true, then the argument is cogent, which is an extra measure of how convincing it is.
Right, now that we have cleared up what an argument is, we can now take a look at how to
win them, and make your arguments strong enough to guarantee an ice-cold pint with your name on it.
Modus ponens and modus tollens arguments are perhaps the oldest and most well-known arguments,
and were first outlined by Theophrastus, the successor to Aristotle. The arguments take
the form of a logical syllogism, which means there are two premises that support one conclusion. They
are also deductive, meaning that the premises are meant to show that the conclusion is guaranteed.
So let’s have a look at an example: -If I spend the afternoon drinking alone,
then I won’t finish this video script on time -I do spend the afternoon drinking alone
-Therefore, I won’t finish this video script on time
We can tell this is a modus ponens argument because there are no negations involved,
like those found in a modus tollens argument. The argument is valid because the conclusion logically
follows from the premises, so if the premises are true, and the argument is sound, we know for
certain that the conclusion is guaranteed. This makes for a fantastic structure because there’s
really nothing your opponent can do, except question whether the premises are actually true.
However, there are pitfalls to avoid when using these arguments,
namely affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. Although they look nearly identical
to modus ponens and modus tollens, they are actually invalid structures. If we take the same
premises from our earlier example and shuffle them around, then it makes it easier to understand why:
-If I spend the afternoon drinking alone, then I won’t finish this video on time
-I didn’t finish this video on time -Therefore, I spent the afternoon drinking alone
This is an invalid argument because even though the premises are true, the conclusion is false,
because there could be other reasons that I didn’t finish the video on time. I might have had a power
cut, or went to practise transcendental meditation in the Himalayas with a Maharishi, for example.
It’s called affirming the consequent because for the second premise,
you repeat the consequent part of the first premise.
In logic, this is an illegal move, and is actually punishable with death in some philosophy seminars.
The hypothetical syllogism is most recognizable from its use in Agatha Christie novels and
detective shows on TV, and although it looks quite different from the arguments we just covered, it’s
essentially a modus ponens argument with two ‘if… then…’ premises, called conditional statements.
Because this argument is made up from modus ponens arguments, it’s also deductive,
where the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. For example:
-If you’re a philosopher, then you’re not attractive to women
If you’re not attractive to women, then you will die alone.
-Therefore, if you’re a philosopher, then you will die alone.
One related argument is known as the chain argument, and is made up from
modus tollens arguments rather than modus ponens. This argument doesn't have the same syllogistic
structure as the previous argument, and so we can stack as many modus tollens arguments together as
we like, hence the name chain. So the next time you find yourself accused for murder,
make sure you use a chain argument to show how there’s absolutely no way you could have
committed it, using a perfectly valid logical argument. God knows it’s saved me a few times.
If you want to earn that crisp, refreshing pint, then you have to make sure that your argument
avoids making logical fallacies. When we talk about a fallacy in an argument, we don’t mean
an ocean of penises, but rather an error or fault in our reasoning, that makes our argument invalid.
Sometimes we might commit a logical fallacy unintentionally, but sometimes they are used
deliberately in order to manipulate or deceive the listener into thinking the argument is better
than it actually is. Much like when you’re on the pull in a club and desperately trying to disguise
the fact that you’re painfully average-looking by telling her all about how you spiritually
found yourself when backpacking in east Europe, man. So knowing what logical fallacies are and
how to spot them can be really useful when it comes to winning yourself the victory.
We’ve all had arguments with people who are complete twats who don’t have a clue what they
are talking about, but if you criticize their argument on the basis of them being a twat,
then you have just committed a logical fallacy called the ad hominem fallacy. It works like this
- rather than refuting the actual content of the argument, the arguer makes a personal attack at
the person making the argument. This can be on the basis of their intelligence, their personality,
their qualifications, or on the basis that they are simply a twat. Even though this might be true,
we have to criticize the argument rather than the person to avoid committing this logical fallacy.
Next we have the appeal to authority. With this fallacy, the arguer claims that their
argument is true because some authority said so, rather than using a valid argument structure and
supporting it with evidence. Someone might argue that everything Elon Musk commands is good.
If Elon Musk commands them to insert a SpaceX rocket booster firmly up their ass and ignite it,
then that must be good, because Elon Musk said it. Clearly, it doesn’t make for a
strong argument just because an authority figure or organization said so. One notable exception
to this rule is science because authority has no place. Scientific knowledge is gathered through
experiment and evidence, not authority. Another fallacy is the straw man. With
this fallacy, instead of making an argument against what the other person actually said,
the arguer makes up an oversimplified and caricatured version of the argument and
attacks that instead. This is often used because it’s much easier to knock down an argument that
you made yourself than to knock down a complex argument made by someone else. A brilliant example
of the straw man fallacy comes from this video where Cathy Newman interviews Jordan Peterson,
and her caricaturing of his argument is just so obvious. Yeah, this is definitely one to avoid.
The final fallacy we will look at is the association fallacy, which basically asserts
that because two things are associated, they must share all the same qualities. This can be used in
two ways, either honour through association, or guilt through association. Someone might argue
that since their father was in the military, their son must be well-raised and disciplined,
when in reality they are dealing crack at 1am under the streetlights in a Lidl car-park.
The guilt through association fallacy is sometimes called the ‘reductio ad Hitlerum’,
because of the tendency to invalidate someone else’s argument on the basis that the same
view was also held by Adolf Hitler, so must be wrong. I mean, let’s be honest,
the real crime was him thinking he could get away with those shorts.
So, you are now ready to head forth to the pub, and using all your knowledge about argumentative
strategies and fallacies, are ready to completely dominate your mates with facts and logic.
Enjoy this while it lasts, because while this is good for winning arguments,
it’s probably not the best tactic to stay mates with them for much longer.
If you enjoyed this video, and would like to learn about more arguments and fallacies, then
be sure to like and leave a comment down below, because there are plenty more to talk about.
Thank you very much for watching, peace and love, and I’ll see you in the next video.