Trains of thought number two. Where I see how much use and sense my free form notes written on a train ride make.
In most statements there are supporting ideas that are never directly addressed. These are called unstated premises. When we evaluate truth. Maims we should be aware that there may be certain intermediary steps or fundamental ideas that are not explicit in the argument. It is a good exercise to determine what these are, or might be. If an unstated premise conflicts with any of the stated premises it should be used as a consistency test and if found to not be a necessary condition ignored. If the premises as stated are insufficient the arguer must either state additional premises, restructure the argument, or abandon their rational claim. Premises that are left unstated should only be done so in a formal situation if the argument would be needlessly cluttered by them, or If they are not required for a particular section of the argument ( and will be stated later). In informal argument premises may be left unstated if they are thought to be implicit, for elegance, brevity, or simplicity. If an argument is. Challenged on grounds of insufficient evidence, then unstated premises may be brought to bear.
It can be helpful in an argument to start with... "If we are assuming premise a, b, and c, then...."
ReplyDeleteThis way the premises get challenged from square one; and it is easier to see exactly where the disagreement begins.
I'm guilty of NOT doing that but it's a good thing to remember to do :)
-Erii
That is formalism, which removes more problems than it starts to be sure. The problems arise with this not being the way that discussions actually take place in the wild. Additionally the point of this idea is the unstated premises; it would be next to impossible to state all things that you hold to be true and valid each time you want to talk to someone. This is more about how to deal with these ideas once the conversation has already started; preferably without making it halt completely.
ReplyDelete