What counts as an argument?

**Dr B** · 25th October 2006, 09:03 AM

I had an interesting conversation with a skeptical friend the other day. We were talking about arguments (in the scientific sense of the word) their structure, form, and what counts as good and poor reasoning.

He made a statement to me that I would like to share and invite comment on. Now, he said to me something like

"Any non-viable reason recruited to support an argument, automatically makes it a non-argument. By definition when we say a reason is needed to support a conclusion, we mean a viable reason - only these will do. If the reason given is not viable it does not count as an argument at all (in the scientific sense of the word). Therefore, the argument can be legitimately ignored"

I only half-agree. If this was literally true there would be no such thing as a fallacious argument - indeed it would be an oxymoron or contradiction. The moment the argument becomes fallacious - it ceases to be an argument :D :D. In addition I do not think you can ignore the argument - because the conlcusion could be true for other reasons not given. His ideas might be nice in theory (though I dont think they are), but in practice they break down.

Also, in the context of education, I dont think anyone would learn anything by having their "arguments" ignored - I find this reaction a bit extreme. Of course, not all ideas are equal, but it is always important to know why that is and to highlight that in the discussion.

What do others think here? Is it just semantics, or can anyone see the conceptual difference between our positions. :-\ Maybe its me.....I was more than a little...errr..shall we say

Poor reasons = poor arguments dont they?
or do poor reasons = unsupported statements?

**median** · 25th October 2006, 10:23 AM

Poor reasons = poor arguments dont they?
or do poor reasons = unsupported statements?

Initial thoughts:

I think there is a distinction here between a priori and a posteriori units within the context of an argument.

Poor reasoning can either be a result of

1) Failures of logical analysis (logical fallacies etc) and/or
2) Failures in evidence to support that line of reasoning

Both can form grounds for them to be 'countered' rather than dismissed.

**Cuddles** · 25th October 2006, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Dr B

"Any non-viable reason recruited to support an argument, automatically makes it a non-argument. By definition when we say a reason is needed to support a conclusion, we mean a viable reason - only these will do. If the reason given is not viable it does not count as an argument at all (in the scientific sense of the word). Therefore, the argument can be legitimately ignored"

If this was true there would be never be any arguments. In a scientific argument, as opposed to one about opinions, there can only be one correct answer, which would mean that only one person can be making a valid argument. The trouble is that people don't always know which answer is correct. According to this definition you would both already have to know the answer in order to be able to argue about it, at which point having an argument would seem rather silly.

**Mongrel** · 25th October 2006, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Originally Posted by Dr B

"Any non-viable reason recruited to support an argument, automatically makes it a non-argument. By definition when we say a reason is needed to support a conclusion, we mean a viable reason - only these will do. If the reason given is not viable it does not count as an argument at all (in the scientific sense of the word). Therefore, the argument can be legitimately ignored"

If this was true there would be never be any arguments. In a scientific argument, as opposed to one about opinions, there can only be one correct answer, which would mean that only one person can be making a valid argument. The trouble is that people don't always know which answer is correct. According to this definition you would both already have to know the answer in order to be able to argue about it, at which point having an argument would seem rather silly.

In that sense though couldn't you use an argument to strengthen the validity or check the robustness of the correct answer?

**Lord Muck oGentry** · 25th October 2006, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Dr B

I had an interesting conversation with a skeptical friend the other day. We were talking about arguments (in the scientific sense of the word)...

He made a statement to me that I would like to share and invite comment on. Now, he said to me something like

"Any non-viable reason recruited to support an argument, automatically makes it a non-argument. By definition when we say a reason is needed to support a conclusion, we mean a viable reason - only these will do. If the reason given is not viable it does not count as an argument at all (in the scientific sense of the word). Therefore, the argument can be legitimately ignored"

I only half-agree. If this was literally true there would be no such thing as a fallacious argument - indeed it would be an oxymoron or contradiction. The moment the argument becomes fallacious - it ceases to be an argument :D :D.

Just an idle thought here. We could treat the adjective in non~viable reason or fallacious argument as an alienans word. So these phrases would go into the same linguistic box as:

false teeth,
decoy duck,
toy car

and so on. ( Or , now that I think of it, Scotch mist, Dutch courage and French leave :) )

If so, I suppose it wouldn't make much difference how you put the point.

There was one point that puzzled me: when your friend spoke of the scientific sense of the word, did he have one of the technical meanings of ' argument' in mind?