PDF How Do We Distinguish Arguments and Causal Explanations

1

HOW DO WE DISTINGUISH ARGUMENTS AND CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS? ? 2007 Claude Gratton Compare the following passages, and identify the argument and the causal explanation. A (1) You will succeed in this course because you are intelligent and industrious. A (2) You have succeeded in this course because you are intelligent and industrious. When contrasting the conclusions of (1) and (2) in this limited context, the past tense in (2) suggests that the conclusion is assumed to be true, while the future tense in the conclusion of (1) suggests that it is NOT assumed to be true. Do NOT assume that the past tense of a conclusion entails that the conclusion is assumed to be true! For example, historians can argue for or against the occurrence of a past event.

Statement S is used to ARGUE for / SUPPORT the truth or acceptability of conclusion C IF (i) Statement S provides some evidence that C is true/acceptable. (ii) The conclusion of an argument is NOT supposed to be assumed to be true/acceptable. If an argument does assume its conclusion, then the argument is circular, and consequently, the conclusion cannot be accepted from that argument.

Statement S is used to EXPLAIN causally conclusion C IF (i) Statement S is used to help us understand why statement C is true: S refers to an event(s) that causes or that are part of the cause of the event(s) mentioned or described in the conclusion. (ii) Conclusion C IS assumed to be true. We usually speak only of truth in the case of causal explanations because they deal with only natural events.

CAUTION. We also use the word "explain" to mean something other than a causal explanation: (i) Sometimes we use "explain" in a descriptive sense, e.g. "Explain to me what happened". (ii) Sometimes our understanding of something is based on how something else functions, or how something is to be done. For example, "That individual is a provider because that is his/her role in that culture" is an example of a functional explanation: we understand why s/he is a provider because of his/her function. The sentence, "One bakes a cake by doing x,y,z" is a conditional statement, "If one does x,y,z, then one bakes a cake", in which the proposition, "one does x,y,z" explains how to bake a cake. (iii) Sometimes we understand something because we know its goals. For instance, "That individual is a provider because s/he wants to feed his/her family (i.e. because his/her goal is to feed his/her family". This is a goal-based explanation (teleological explanation). These are NOT examples of causal explanations. Do not confuse them with causal explanations.

(I) Questions to raise to determine whether reasoning is an argument or an explanation:

(1) Is the conclusion interpreted as a fact, or assumed to be a true about some natural event? Explanation (2) Is the author trying to make me understand why a statement is true? Explanation (3) Is the conclusion interpreted as something doubtful that needs to be supported? Argument (4) Is the author trying to convince/persuade me to believe or do something? Argument

Given these notions of an argument and explanation, it is reasonable to interpret A(1) in the first paragraph as an argument, and A(2) as an explanation. NOTE: The premise indicator "because" can be used to introduce reasons of either arguments or explanations.

There is another way to help us distinguish arguments from explanations. Consider the following examples. (a) Compare/contrast their reasons. (b) Which one of the following reasoning is an explanation? argument?

Someone forgot the pen on the table. causal explanation

1. I see a pen on the table. & 2. Observations conditions are good. & 3. Nothing physical

or psychological is hindering my vision. argument

There is a pen on the table.

(II) Procedure to determine whether reasoning is an argument or a causal explanation:

(1) Identify the main/final conclusion, C. (2) Temporarily discard the actually given reasons. (3) Focus only on conclusion C.

2

(4) Give some reasons that would support the truth or acceptability of C. Either write them down or mentally note them. It's not important that they be good supportive reasons. What you want to do is invent a sufficient number of supportive reasons in order to have a sense of the kind of reason that would support the truth or acceptability of C. (5) Temporarily assume that the conclusion C is true, and give some reasons that would make us understand why C is true. Either write them down or mentally note them. Again, it's not important that they be good (causally) explanatory reasons. What you want to do is invent a sufficient number of reasons in order to have a sense of the kind of reason that would help us to understand why C is true. (6) Generally, these two groups of reasons will be different because an (a) argument and a causal explanation have different goals, and (b) a causal explanation assumes that its conclusion is true, but an argument attempts to show that its conclusion is true. (7) Compare your two groups of reasons to the given reasons in the reasoning. (8) If the given reasons resemble more your reasons in (4), then it's probably an argument. (9) If the given reasons resemble more your reasons in (5), then it's probably a causal explanation.

NOTE that approach (II) assumes that the reasons of an argument and an explanation are different. This is NOT always the case: for instance, the reasons of argument A(1) and explanation A(2) in the first paragraph are identical.

APPLICATIONS OF APPROACH (II):

FIRST EXAMPLE (1) ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download