Pints With Aquinas - 27: Is arguing a good thing? What makes for a sound argument?

Starting point is 00:00:00 Welcome to Pints with Aquinas, episode 27. I'm Matt Fradd. Today we'll be discussing logic and argumentation. This is the first part in a three-part series that you have been asking me for. And so here it is. Buckle up! Great to have you back here at Pints with Aquinas. This is the show where you and I would normally pull up a barstool next to the angelic doctor to discuss theology and philosophy. But today you're just stuck with me. Okay. And we're going to be discussing, well, just philosophy, really.

Starting point is 00:00:46 A branch of philosophy is logic. And it's not something that all of us took in high school or college, which is unfortunate. This summer, past summer, I was giving a talk at Benedictine College in Kansas. And I asked those I was speaking to, how many of you studied logic in high school? I was speaking to, how many of you studied logic in high school? And about three hands went up. There was about 50 in the room. And then I said, who weren't homeschooled? And of course, those three hands dropped. So it's unfortunate, I think, that we don't teach argumentation and logic to our kids. And I never learned it in high school. It wasn't until I went to college. So anyway, I think it's going to be a help. In this first episode, here's what we're going to do. We're going to talk about why arguing is necessary, why it's a good thing. We'll talk

Starting point is 00:01:34 about the two main types of arguments, and then we'll look at what is required for an argument to be sound. Okay, that's all we'll be doing in this episode. And then in the coming two episodes, we're going to be discussing logical fallacies, not just so you and I can point at other people and say, haha, that's a fallacy. But so that we can look at ourselves and say, okay, the way I'm arguing just isn't working, or it's invalid. And now I can see why that sort of thing. or it's invalid, and now I can see why, that sort of thing. And we'll also discuss some helpful ways to argue. It's important that we learn how to win an argument without losing a soul. Okay. So, arguing, arguing, arguing, arguing. What do you think people think of when they hear that word argument? Well, here's what you got to do. It's quite easy to see. You just

Starting point is 00:02:26 type in argue or argument. In fact, I'm going to do it right now as we talk, right? Check it out. If I type in argue into Google and click images, let me tell you what I see. Everyone is shouting at each other, all of them, okay? They're red in the face. Their hands are out in front of them. They're even grabbing each other by the shirt. They're pointing at each other. They're shouting. But in logic, this isn't what we mean. What is an argument? Let me put it to you as simply as it can be put. An argument is a way, sorry, an argument is just how we give reasons to believe a certain thing, right? An argument is giving reasons to believe a certain thing or to not believe a certain thing. Let me say that again. An argument involves giving a reason or reasons to believe a certain thing or

Starting point is 00:03:18 to not believe a certain thing. That's all it is. It doesn't have to involve you and I getting upset with each other. I have four adorable children. And I remember when my wife and I lived in San Diego, we just had two at the time, I think it was. And they would wake up at this ungodly hour, you know, 5, 6 a.m. and run into our room. And I remember my wife and I, this one day, we were like, hey, go outside. We'll have a competition. We'll see who can stay outside the longest. Don't you dare judge me. I was tired. Okay. And if you're not a parent yet, you just wait. Okay. Anyway, within a couple of minutes, my son, I remember, ran back in the room and said, what do we win?

Starting point is 00:04:07 And I was like, what? What do we win? The competition. And my wife lifted her head off the pillow and said, candy. I said, baby. Okay, by the way, now you can judge us, okay? I said, honey, candy? It's six in the morning.

Starting point is 00:04:22 And she went, well, it's not really candy. It's vitamins, but they bubble on their tongue. It'll be fine. So I turned and looked and went, candy, you get candy. Anything for five minutes of sleep, right? Well, the kids ran off. And I remember, you know, eventually, and of course, this happens regularly. The kids would start, well, we say arguing, don't we? But really, they're not arguing at all. They're not giving reasons to believe a certain thing or not believe a certain thing. They're just bickering back and forth. Did too, did not. Did too, did not. It's enough to make you scratch your eyeballs out, isn't it? It's terrible hearing that kind of thing. Well, that's not an argument.

Starting point is 00:04:59 Now, sometimes you'll hear Christians say something like this. Now, sometimes you'll hear Christians say something like this. We shouldn't argue with people. We should just share our story. And I think this is really sad that we say things like that because, look, I would say that argumentation is a necessary follow-up to evangelization. Why do I say that? Well, if I proclaim the gospel to somebody, let's say I'm sitting on a plane or I'm talking to my neighbor or I'm talking to my barista and I say, well, yes, I believe that God exists and that he loves you and that he wants you to be with him in heaven,

Starting point is 00:05:37 that sort of thing. Well, if the person I'm talking to is taking me seriously, if they're engaging with what I'm saying, they're likely to ask me for reasons. Why do you believe this? Or rather, why should I believe this? Now, for that point, if you're to answer the person in an intelligible way, you're going to be what? What are you going to be doing? You're going to have to give reasons to believe a certain thing and not believe a certain thing. That's arguing. That's why I think argumentation is a necessary follow-up to evangelization. Now, for those of you who still aren't convinced, I want to read to you

Starting point is 00:06:15 two kind of funny verses from sacred scripture. Acts chapter 17. Let's see here. Verse 2 and 17. Let's see here, verse 2 and 17 Alright, it's talking about Paul Alright, he's going into a synagogue in Thessalonica And it says this And Paul went in, as was his custom And for three weeks he argued with them Now, if you think arguing means getting upset and offended And digging your heels in and yelling at each other

Starting point is 00:06:51 You might be tempted to say, just Paul, look, it's not worth it, mate Let it go, you know, you just gotta walk away Just chillax, go for a walk, breathe some air in Alright, get some fresh air, get out of the synagogue But of course, that isn't what arguing means walk, breathe some air in, all right, get some fresh air, get out of the synagogue. But of course, that isn't what arguing means. And it shows this because it follows on by saying, you know, he argued with them from the scriptures. How did he do that? It says, explaining and proving that it was necessary for Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead.

Starting point is 00:07:27 In verse 17, I remember reading this and actually laughing out loud. Where are we here? Okay. Verse 17 of the same chapter, it says, so he argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons and in the marketplace every day with those who chanced to be there. Okay. now that is just funny, don't you think? So it's like Paul's arguing in the synagogue, and then he goes out for a stretch, and he shows up at the marketplace, and there you are, right? First century Jew, just picking up some eggs and lettuce and bacon and, well, okay, not bacon, you're a first century Jew, but the other stuff. And out pops Paul, right? Because you just happen to be there and he's ready for an argument. All right. So,

Starting point is 00:08:10 I think I've hopefully made my point, argued my point, given reasons to show that my conclusion is true. And that's just to show that arguing can be a good thing. All right. Now, what are the two main types of arguments? Well, there are two main types of arguments because there are two main ways of reasoning, and they are deductive and inductive. All right. Deductive and inductive. All right. Now, let me give you a sort of simple definition or a way to distinguish the two, okay? A deductive argument is one which reasons from the universal to a particular, and an inductive argument is one which reasons from the particular to the universal. What do I mean? Well, every deductive argument has in the premises, what is a premise? A premise is just a step in an argument, okay? Every deductive argument has

Starting point is 00:09:14 at least one universal statement, right? Proposition. So, there's that classic deductive argument. Premise one, all men are mortal. Premise two, Socrates was a man. Conclusion, therefore, Socrates was mortal. So, that first premise, let's just focus on that for a second? Socrates is mortal. An inductive argument, on the other hand, usually reasons from particulars to universals. What might that look like? Well, we might say, my great-grandfather was a man and he was mortal. My grandfather was a man, by man, I just mean human, because I'm sexist. That's a joke. Maybe a bad one. Just, okay, I'll stick to the logic. My grandfather was a man and he was mortal. My father was a man and he was mortal.

Starting point is 00:10:26 he was mortal. My father was a man and he was mortal. Conclusion, therefore, all men are mortal. So, an inductive argument is one that argues usually from particular premises to universal conclusions. So, this is the method of the scientific method, right? The scientific method is inductive. It argues from particulars to universals. And this is why scientific explanations or conclusions are always open to revision. Because we might discover a new piece of evidence, a new piece of evidence which is a particular bit of evidence that alters the conclusion. Okay. So, with induction, all right, we get probable certainty, we might say. But with deduction, if the premises are true, the logic is valid, etc., we'll talk about that in a moment, then we get absolute certainty. induction and then we'll leave induction to one side and just focus on deduction. An inductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. All right. So, an inductive argument, you've

Starting point is 00:11:40 probably heard people say that that's a valid argument a valid argument or an invalid argument. Well, we don't say that about inductive reasoning so much. When we talk about induction, we're just saying whether it's a weak argument or a strong argument. When we talk about an argument being valid or invalid You remember I said with deduction, okay, if the premises are true, logic is valid, etc., then whether you like it or not, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. All right. So, for a deductive argument to be sound, three things are required. So, if you're writing stuff down, get a pen out. This is the time you want to either write it down or memorize it, okay? You need clear terms, true premises, and valid logic. You need clear terms, true premises, and valid logic. Now, when I say you need clear terms, what I mean is you need to be using terms not in an equivocal way. Equivocation just refers to using a term in more than one sense. This is actually

Starting point is 00:13:02 what most of our jokes are based on, at least the simple jokes. Let me think of one. I remember hearing a joke a while back, it went like this. There were three couples sitting at an old folks home. And the first man said to his wife, pass me the honey, honey. The second man said to his wife, pass me the sugar, sugar. And the third man looked at his wife and said, pass me the tea bag. So that's insulting maybe, but it's funny. And the reason it's funny is because we're equivocating on the word bag. Just by using that word bag, it's meant to be understood in two different senses, right? A tea bag is a thing, and calling an old woman a bag, well, it's rather insulting, but it's not a nice thing to say to someone. And that's why it's funny if you're rude and insensitive like me.

Starting point is 00:13:59 So there you go. So let's look at those three things. You need clear terms. Let me give you an example of an argument that doesn't have clear terms, okay? Premise one, all feathers are light. Premise two, that which is light is not dark. Conclusion, therefore, feathers are not dark. All right, now that sounds respectable, but the problem is that I'm using the term light in two different senses. In the first premise, I forget in which order I said it, but when I said, all feathers are light, I'm referring to weight. And when I say that which is light is not dark,

Starting point is 00:14:41 when I say light, I'm meaning that which enables us to see, okay? And so, that's unsound, okay? It's actually invalid as well because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, okay? So, we need clear terms. The second thing we need, obviously, is true premises, all right? If you don't have true premises, well, the conclusion might end up being false. Let me give you an argument with false premises, okay? All, I'm thinking here on the spot, all toasters are infallible. My son, Peter, is a toaster, and therefore, my son peter is a toaster and therefore my son peter is infallible now it might be surprising when i tell you that that's a logically valid argument what that means is the conclusion does follow from the premises the only problem is the premises are false. It's not true that all toasters, or any toasters for that matter, are infallible.

Starting point is 00:15:48 And it's not true that my son Peter is a toaster. So that is a valid argument, sure. Because as I say, the conclusion follows from the premises. But it's an unsound argument. It just doesn't, the conclusion doesn't follow. Right, the third thing we need is valid logic. And what that basically means is the conclusion has to follow from the premises. So, I mean, you could have like, you could have three different propositions that are true.

Starting point is 00:16:21 Okay. Premise one, premise two, conclusion, and the argument still be invalid. And so, let me give you an example, okay? Premise one, snow is white. Premise two, Canberra is the capital of Australia. Conclusion, right. Therefore, a beaver, all right, is a semi-aquatic broad-tailed rodent. Well, each of those statements is true, but the conclusion, even though it's true that a beaver is a semi-aquatic broad-tailed rodent, in no way follows from the premises Snow is White and Canberra is the capital of Australia. So if you want your argument to be sound, you have to have clear terms, true premises, and valid logic. I hope that was a help. As I say, this is just meant to be an introduction to the introduction of sort of argumentation. So today we discussed what an argument is,

Starting point is 00:17:24 that is giving reasons to believe a certain thing, or giving reasons to not believe a certain thing. We talked about the two main types of argumentation, deduction and induction. And you remember I gave a somewhat inadequate way of distinguishing between deduction and induction. I said a deductive argument is one which reasons from the universal to the particular, and an inductive argument is one which usually argues from the particular to the universal. And then we put induction to one side, and we spoke of deduction. We spoke about the three things that are necessary for a deductive argument to be valid, all right? Clear terms, true premises, and valid logic. And just to clear it up in case I wasn't that clear earlier, when you say, so when we say like

Starting point is 00:18:14 an argument is valid or an argument is sound, what's the difference? Okay. We say an argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises, okay? We say an argument is sound if it actually is true, if it actually not only follows from the premises, but those premises be true as well. I hope that makes sense. So when I said my son's a toaster, right, and I concluded that my son was infallible, that was a logically valid argument

Starting point is 00:18:42 because the conclusion followed the premises, but it was unsound right because it was not true so i hope that's clear all right next week we'll talk about logical fallacies and we'll give examples of logical fallacies and i think you're really going to enjoy it so thank you for listening to pints with aquinas as always i'm going to go ahead and ask that you rate the podcast. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh. Check this out. My name is Gomer, and I'm the co-host of Catching Foxes.

Starting point is 00:19:13 Foxes. Foxes. Catching Foxes. Foxes. I would like to tell you about something more important than my podcast. What? Pints with Aquinas. Pint, pint, p-p-p-p-p-pints with Aquinas. Pint, pint, p-p-p-p-pints with Aquinas.

Starting point is 00:19:26 Matt Fradd actually wrote a book on 50-plus deep thoughts from the angelic doctor. Pints with Aquinas. Here's the deal. Beer is easily lovable, but medieval monastic philosophers, they can be quite intimidating. Yet in this short, pithy book, and I don't use that word often. In fact, I never use the word pithy. But I'm going to use it here, and you're going to agree with me. Matt Fradd made The Greatest Mind in the History of the Church as easily accessible as your favorite beer.

Starting point is 00:19:53 You'll laugh. You'll cry. Well, you won't cry. But you'll laugh, and you'll discover that this old school philosopher's wisdom is just as relevant today as it was back then. So do yourself a favor. Get a copy of this enlightening, pithy little book from Amazon right now. And when it arrives, pour yourself a frothy pint and dig in. You'll be glad you did. Okay, sorry. Gomer sent me that a while back and I was so tickled that he was kind enough

Starting point is 00:20:23 to send that to me. If you haven't got the book, maybe think about getting it. That's a good way to support the podcast. Had to throw that one in. All right. God bless you guys. Talk to you next week. See ya. consciousness I battle with my selfish flesh whose wolves am I feeding myself to who's gonna survive

Pints With Aquinas - 27: Is arguing a good thing? What makes for a sound argument?

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.