Philosophy - Philosophy Course Notes

Conductive Arguments

(Balance of Consideration Arguments)

Lecture 17

June 26, 2007

I. Conductive Arguments

1. Definition

A conductive argument is a non-deductive argument where you have a number of positive and negative (for and against) considerations to balance.

2.  How Do We Represent Conductive Arguments?

A. They are ultimately of the convergent type studied earlier.

The premises each supply independent support for the conclusion.  Have 3-4 premises usually that support the conclusion.

B. Not an Ordinary Convergent Argument Though

• Also have con (negative) considerations that you need to weigh the positive considerations against.
• Lots of counter-considerations usually.
• Often pro/con premises are not valued the same, some "worth more" than others and this influences the decision.

3. How Do We Evaluate Conductive Arguments?

A. Evaluate Each Consideration

i. Is it relevant to the conclusion?

ii. Is is acceptable?

iii. Do the considerations as a whole provide grounds for believing the conclusion. (Non-deductive arguments have to satisfy both R&G conditions.)

B. Evaluate Relevant Conclusions

C. Examine Counter-Considerations

i. Is it really a genuine counter-consideration?

Does it supply negative evidence for the conclusion?

D. Weigh The Remaining Considerations

i. Have to come to a conclusion

ii. Are any considerations obviously decisive?  Or really decisive?

iii. How important are the considerations relative to one another?

iv. There might be some considerations you have not thought about yet. When that consideration occurs to you, it could tip the scales in the other direction.

II. The Role of Counter-Considerations

Counter considerations can always arise, but there are important differences in how they come into play based on the type of argument.

1. Deductively Valid Arguments

In a deductively valid argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true.  Counter-considerations are not valid or useful.

A. In this case raising counter-considerations will not work.

B. Have to attack terms, premises or validity of argument.

C. In this case have to counter a premise most of the time.

* scientists seem to fall into this trap all the time...

2. Non-deductively Valid Arguments

A. In a non-deductive argument, it is always possible that you could acquire further / more information (another premise) - and that would lessen the support for the conclusion.

B. Must Make A Decision (Most of Time)

You are usually forced to come to some sort of decision, doing the best that you can.