Reasoning and Argument Analysis

1
Reasoning and Argument Analysis
Clark Wolf Director of Bioethics Iowa State
University jwcwolf_at_iastate.edu
2

• OBJECTIVES On completion of this unit, students
  should be able
• 1.1 to recognize when they are presented with an
  argument,
• 1.2 to analyze arguments by identifying the
  conclusion and distinguishing conclusions from
  premises.
• 1.3 to evaluate arguments by considering the
  plausibility of the premises and the extent to
  which the premises support the conclusion.
• 1.4 to distinguish deductive and inductive
  arguments,
• 1.5 to distinguish an arguments content from
  its form.
• 1.5 to define key concepts argument, premise,
  conclusion, evidence, rationally persuasive
  argument, fallacy, valid argument, invalid
  argument, inductive argument, abductive argument.
  
• 1.6 to evaluate arguments, by (i)
  distinguishing premises from conclusion, (ii)
  putting the argument in standard form, (iii)
  critically examining the premises, and (iv)
  evaluating the inference from premises to
  conclusion.
• 1.7 to be self-reflectively critical of their
  own arguments and those of others.

3
What is an Argument?

• Argument A set of statements, some of which
  serve as premises, one of which serves as a
  conclusion, such that the premises purport to
  give evidence for the conclusion.
• Premise A premise is a statement that purports
  to give evidence for the conclusion.
• Evidence To say that a statement A is evidence
  for another statement B is to say that if A were
  true, this would provide some reason to believe
  that B is true.
• Conclusion The statement in an argument that is
  supposedly supported by the evidence.

4
When do we encounter arguments?

• Any time anyone tries to persuade you of
  something, or to make you change your mind.
• Rational persuasion uses reasons, but even
  irrational persuasion employs reasons (bad
  reasons). In evaluating arguments, we need to be
  able to evaluate reasons and patterns of
  reasoning.

5

• Nick OK, lets say youre defending chocolate
  and Im defending vanilla. Now if I were to say
  to you vanilla is the best flavor ice cream,
  youd say?
• Joey No, Chocolate is.
• Nick Exactly. But you cant win that argument.
  So, Ill ask you, So you think chocolate is the
  end all and be all of ice cream, do you?
• Joey Its the best ice cream. I wouldnt order
  any other.
• Nick Oh, so its all chocolate for you, is it?
• Joey Yes, chocolate is all I need.
• Nick Well, I need more than chocolate. And for
  that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe
  that we need freedom, and choice when it comes to
  our ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the
  definition of liberty.
• Joey But thats not what were talking about.
• Nick Ah, but thats what Im talking about.
• -from Thank you for Smoking (Film)

6

• Joey But thats not what were talking about.
• Nick Ah, but thats what Im talking about.
• Joey But you didnt prove that vanilla is the
  best.
• Nick I didnt have to. I proved that you are
  wrong, and if youre wrong, Im right.
• Joey But you didnt convince me.
• Nick Im not after you, Im after them.
  (pointing to the crowd around them)
• -from Thank you for Smoking (Film)

7
Rational Argument v. Persuasive Rhetoric

• Sometimes people are persuasive not because they
  are offering well-reasoned arguments, but because
  they are good at bamboozling other people.
• Good philosophical arguments should be rationally
  persuasive.

8
Indicator Words

• Indicator words Sometimes writers use language
  that indicates the structure of the argument they
  are giving. The following words and phrases
  indicate that what follows is probably the
  conclusion of an argument
• Therefore
• thus
• for that reason
• hence
• it follows that

9
Conclusion Indicators

• Because
• Since
• For
• For the reason that

10
Example

• Because animals are conscious, capable of
  experiencing pain and pleasure, they are like
  people in significant respects. Since they are
  also intelligentoften far more intelligent than
  newborn babies for example, it follows that they
  deserve kind treatment from human beings and that
  it is wrong to treat them with cruelty.

11
Examples

• Since private business is the most effective
  instrument of economic change, the government
  should utilize the resources of private business
  in its economic planning and decision making.
• Women work just as hard as men and are just as
  productive. Therefore they should be compensated
  the same.

12
Standard Form

• Standard Form Usually we find arguments
  expressed in ordinary prose. But as noted, when
  we are evaluating arguments it is a good idea to
  separate the premises from the conclusion, and to
  put the argument into standard form. We say
  that an argument is in standard form when the
  premises are numbered and listed separately, and
  when the conclusion is clearly written underneath
  them.

13
Standard Form Version

• (1) Animals are conscious.
• (2) Animals are capable of experiencing pain and
  pleasure.
• (3) Animals are intelligent.
• (4) Animals are like people in significant
  respects.
• Conclusion
• (5) Therefore (i) animals deserve kind treatment
  from humans and (ii) it is wrong to treat animals
  with cruelty.

14
A Reservation

• Whenever we put an argument in standard form, we
  have given an interpretation of that argument.
  Ideally, an interpretation should accurately
  capture the meaning of the original, but it is
  always possible to challenge the accuracy of an
  interpretation.

15
Evaluating an Argument

• By splicing genes into crop plants, scientists
  have changed these crops in ways that never could
  have come about through the natural process of
  selective breeding. These changes in our food
  crops threaten the health of everyone in the
  world, and impose a great danger of massive
  environmental damage. Genetically modified crops
  are unnatural and dangerous. We should avoid
  using them and growing them, and should do
  whatever it takes to eliminate them from Iowa
  farms.

16
Questions

• What is the author of this passage trying to
  persuade you to believe? (Whats the
  conclusion?)
• What reasons are being offered? (What are the
  premises?)
• In this argument there are few indicator words
  used, but it is not hard to figure out what the
  author would like us to believe.

17
Whats the Conclusion?

• Conclusion Often the conclusion of an argument
  is stated either in the first sentence of a
  paragraph, or in the last sentence of the
  paragraph. In this case, the conclusionthe
  claim the author intends to persuade us to
  acceptis a complex claim. The author urges
  that
• (1) We should avoid using and growing genetically
  modified crops, and
• (2) We should do whatever it takes to eliminate
  these crops from Iowa farms.

18
Whats evidence or reasons are given?

• Premises
• P1) Gene splicing changes crops in ways that
  could never have come about through selective
  breeding.
• P2) Changes in food crops due to gene splicing
  threaten everyones health.
• P3) Changes in food crops pose a threat of
  massive environmental damage.
• P4) Genetic modification of crops is unnatural.
• P5) Genetic modification of crops is dangerous.

19
Step One Are the premises true?

• Premise 1 Gene splicing changes crops in ways
  that never could have come about through
  selective breeding.
• Evaluation Is this true? Some of the properties
  that have been induced through genetic
  engineering might have been produced through
  selective breeding. But it is unlikely that the
  genetic alterations that have been effected in
  the production of genetically modified crops
  would have been produced in any other way.
  Perhaps this premise should be somewhat
  qualified, but it contains a kernel of truth.

20
Step One Are the premises true?

• Premise 2 Changes in food crops due to gene
  splicing threaten everyones health.
• Evaluation This claim requires additional
  support and evidence. Many people are concerned
  about the health effects of genetically modified
  food crops, but no one has shown that these crops
  are dangerous. The author of the paragraph
  provides no evidence that genetically modified
  crops are dangerous.

21
Step One Are the premises true?

• Premise 3 Changes in food crops pose a threat of
  massive environmental damage.
• Evaluation Once again, this claim requires
  support. There may indeed be reasons for concern
  about the environmental effects of genetically
  modified crops, but the author has not given us
  any evidence. Without more evidence, we may not
  be in a position to evaluate this premise.

22
Step One Are the premises true?

• Premise 4 Genetic modification of crops is
  unnatural.
• Evaluation The term natural can be slippery,
  and we may need to know more about what the
  author has in mind. In context, it seems that
  the author regards things that are unnatural as
  bad. But in an important sense, bridges,
  computers, vaccines and artworks are unnatural.

23
Step One Are the premises true?

• Premise 5 Genetic modification of crops is
  dangerous.
• Evaluation Once again we need evidence for such
  a claim before we can place our trust in it. In
  what sense is genetic modification dangerous, and
  what are the specific dangers the author has in
  mind? Without more evidence, we may simply find
  that we are not yet in a position to evaluate the
  argument.

24

• Step Two
• If the premises were true, would they provide
  good evidence for the conclusions?
• Are there implicit premises that should be
  included in the evaluation of the argument?

25

• A Strategy for Evaluating Arguments Of course,
  for the purposes of this course, your views about
  GM crops are not what matter. What does matter
  is the strategy used here for evaluating the
  argument under consideration
• First, identify the arguments premises, and
  restate them clearly.
• Second, evaluate each premise individually is it
  true or false? What evidence, what information
  would you need to know in order to determine
  whether the premises are true?
• If you discover that the premises of the argument
  are simply false, you may need to go no further.
  But if the premises seem true, there is a third
  important step to take in evaluating the
  argument
• Third, consider the relationship between the
  premises and the conclusion. What kind of
  argument is it? Is it a good argument of its
  kind?

26
Argument for Analysis

• Different cultures have different moral values
  For example, some cultures hold that its
  morally right to ethnically cleanse the nation by
  killing those who are not members of the dominant
  group. Some cultures hold that terrorism is
  morally praiseworthy, while others believe that
  its wrong to harm innocent people. But no one
  is in a position to say that their values are
  better than the cultural values of any other
  group. Because of this, it is inappropriate for
  us to impose our arbitrary cultural values on
  terrorists or ethnic cleansers whose values are
  different from ours.

27
In Standard Form

• 1) Different cultures have different moral
  values.
• For example, some cultures hold that its
  morally right to ethnically cleanse the nation by
  killing those who are not members of the dominant
  group. Some cultures hold that terrorism is
  morally praiseworthy, while others believe that
  its wrong to harm innocent people.
• 2) No one is in a position to say that their
  values are better than the cultural values of any
  other group.
• 3) Our own values are arbitrary, and we are
  unjustified in giving them special weight.
• (Implied premise?)
• 4) Conclusion It is inappropriate for us to
  impose our arbitrary values on terrorists or
  ethnic cleansers whose values are different.

28
Thoughts on this Argument

• If this argument goes wrong, where does it go
  wrong? Is it intolerant to prevent people from
  harming one another?
• Is harmfulness an intercultural value that
  allows us to make judgments about the value
  systems of different cultural groups?
• The argument concludes with a plea for tolerance
  Should we be tolerant of all differences? Is it
  intolerant to prohibit theft and assault, since
  thieves and assailants clearly dont share the
  values that motivate our legal system. What are
  the limits of tolerance, and how can we justify
  these limits?
• What is the relationship between relativism and
  toleration? If one is a relativist, would one
  be tolerant of others? What if tolerance is
  not one of the values ones own culture
  recommends? Are we tolerant when we permit
  others to harm and oppress?

29
Fallacies

• Fallacy An argument that provides the illusion
  of support, but no real support, for its
  conclusion.

30
Evaluating Philosophical Arguments

• Fair-Mindedness and the State of Suspended
  Judgment When evaluating arguments, we should
  strive to be impartial and fair-minded. We
  should try to follow where the best reasons lead
  instead of pre-judging the conclusion.

31
Next Deductive Arguments

• Deductive Argument An argument that has the
  property that if the premises are true, then the
  conclusion cannot be false.
• Example
• All vertibrates have hip bones.
• Snakes are vertibrates.
• Therefore, snakes have hipbones.

32
Deductively Valid Arguments

• Df An argument is (df) deductively valid iff it
  has the property that if the premises are true,
  then the conclusion cannot be false.
• Example (From Aristotles Logic)
• All men are mortal.
• Socrates is a man.
• Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

33
Comments

• Deductive validity is a property of the form of
  an argument. The following arguments have the
  same form
• All fish are cold blooded.
• Whales are fish.
• Therefore whales are cold-blooded.
• All goats are quadrupeds.
• Abedna is a goat.
• Abedna is a quadruped.
• All philosophers are geniuses.
• Clark is a philosopher.
• Clark is a genius.
• These arguments exemplify a valid form, so they
  are all valid. But note that some of these
  arguments contain false statements. How can an
  argument be valid if it has false premises?

34
Comments about Validity

• Consider the definition
• Df An argument is (df) deductively valid iff it
  has the property that if the premises are true,
  then the conclusion cannot be false.
• A valid argument can have false premises.
• A valid argument can have a false conclusion.
• A valid argument can have false premises and a
  false conclusion.
• A valid argument can have false premises and a
  true conclusion.
• A valid argument cannot have true premises and a
  false conclusion.
• Examples

35
Comments about Validity

• Two Examples of Valid (but faulty) Arguments
• False premises and false conclusion
• 1) All horses are reptiles.
• 2) All reptiles have wings.
• 3) Therefore all horses have wings.
• False Premises, True Conclusion
• 1) All horses are reptiles.
• 2) All reptiles have fur.
• 3) All horses have fur.
• These are both valid arguments. Since their
  premises are false, they do not provide good
  evidence for their conclusions.

36
Soundness

• An argument is sound iff it is deductively
  valid, and its premises are true.

37
Some Valid Argument Forms

• Modus Ponens If X then Y.
• X.
• Therefore, Y.
• Example
• 1) If Jon swam in the Skunk river, then hell
  stink.
• 2) Jon swam in the skunk river.
• 3) Jon stinks.

38
Some Valid Argument Forms

• Modus Tollens If X then Y.
• not Y.
• Therefore, not X.
• Example
• 1) If Jon swam in the Skunk river, then hell
  stink.
• 2) Jon doesnt stink.
• 3) Jon didnt go swimming in the Skunk.

39
Some Related Invalid Forms

• Affirming the Consequent If X then Y.
• Y.
• Therefore, X.
• Example
• 1) If Jon swam in the Skunk river, then hell
  stink.
• 2) Jon stinks.
• 3) Jon went swimming in the Skunk.

40
Some Related Invalid Forms

• Affirming the Consequent If X then Y.
• Y.
• Therefore, X.
• Counter-example
• 1) If Jon throws water on the streets, then the
  streets will be wet.
• 2) The streets are wet.
• 3) Jon must have thrown water on them.
• Obviously this is a bad argument If you find
  that the streets are wet, its more likely that
  its rained than that someone has been out
  dumping water around.

41
Some Related Invalid Forms

• Denying the Antecedent
• If X then Y.
• Not X.
• Therefore, not X.
• Example
• 1) If Jon swam in the Skunk river, then hell
  stink.
• 2) Jon didnt swim in the Skunk.
• 3) Jon wont stink.
• (What if hes been out shoveling manure?)

42
Quiz Which are valid? Whats the Form?

• If he eats that fish, hell die!
• Ah! He didnt eat the fish.
• He must still be alive.

• If you ride your bike, youll get strong.
• Youre strong!
• You must be a bike rider.1

• If you had taken logic, you would know how to
  distinguish valid from invalid arguments.
• You cant tell which are valid and which are not!
  
• You didnt take logic.

• If you find a penny, youll have luck all day.
• You found a penny!
• Youll have a lucky day.

43
Quiz Which are valid? Whats the Form?

• If he eats that fish, hell die!
• Ah! He didnt eat the fish.
• He must still be alive.
• Invalid.
• Form Denying the Antecedent.

• If you ride your bike, youll get strong.
• Youre strong!
• You must be a bike rider.
• Invalid!
• Form Affirming the Consequent.

• If you had taken logic, you would know how to
  distinguish valid from invalid arguments.
• You cant tell which are valid and which are not!
  
• You didnt take logic.
• Valid.
• Modus Tollens.

• If you find a penny, youll have luck all day.
• You found a penny!
• Youll have a lucky day.
• Valid.
• Form Modus ponens.

44
Aristotelian Syllogisms Some other Valid
Argument Forms

• All X are Y.
• All Y are Z.
• Therefore, all X are Z.

• All X are Y.
• S is an X.
• S is a Y.

• No X are Y.
• S is Y.
• S is not X.

• All X are Y.
• S is not Y.
• S is not X.

Aristotles Logic is a complicated analysis of
simple arguments like these. For almost 2000
years, this was the state of the art!
45
An Informal Method for Testing Validity

• 1) Distinguish the arguments form from its
  substance.
• 2) Write out an abstract version of the
  arguments form Do this by drawing a circle
  around each substantial statement and replacing
  it with a letter.
• 3) Try to fill in the letters with alternative
  substance in such a way that you make the
  premises true, and the conclusion false. This is
  a counterexample to the argument.
• If you can find a counterexample of this kind,
  then you know that the argument was invalid.

46
Testing validity with a counterexample

• In order to institute a stable regime in Iraq
  and pull out, we need help from our former
  allies. But if Candidate Zero wins the election,
  then our former allies will continue to refuse to
  help us. So if Zero wins the election, we will
  not be able to institute a stable regime and pull
  out of Iraq.
• If moral relativism were true, then we should
  expect to find that different cultures have very
  different moral values. But this is just what we
  do find different cultures do have different
  moral values. Therefore moral relativism must be
  true.

47
Testing validity with a counterexample

• In order to institute a stable regime in Iraq
  and pull out, we need help from our former
  allies. But if Candidate Zero wins the election,
  then our former allies will continue to refuse to
  help us. So if Zero wins the election, we will
  not be able to institute a stable regime and pull
  out of Iraq.
• Interpretation
• If we wish to pull out of Iraq, then we need
  help from our allies.
• If Zero is elected we wont have help.
• If Zero is elected, then we wont be able to
  pull out.
• Form
• If X then Y
• If B then Not Y.
• If B then not X.
• This argument is valid No counterexample will
  be forthcoming. But note that if you fail to
  find a counterexample, you dont know for sure
  that the argument is valid! Note also that my
  assurance that the argument is valid does not
  prove that the conclusion is true Perhaps one of
  the premises is false.

48
Testing validity with a counterexample

• If moral relativism were true, then we should
  expect to find that different cultures have very
  different moral values. But this is just what we
  do find different cultures do have different
  moral values. Therefore moral relativism must be
  true.
• If X then Y.
• Y.
• Therefore X.

You already know that this argument is
invalid, Since it affirms the consequent. But
for a Counterexample Counterexample If an
animal is a dog, then it must have hair. My pet
spider has hair. Therefore my pet spider is a
dog.(?)
49
Another interpretation

• If (institute a stable regime in Iraq) and
  (pull out) then (we need help from our former
  allies.)
• If (Zero wins) then (our allies wont help)
  Therefore if (Zero wins) then (no stable regime)
  and (wont pull out of Iraq).
• If (X and Y) then Z. (Still valid.)
• If B then Not Z
• If B then Not (X and Y)
• One more thing to notice Even though this
  argument is valid, it implies nothing about
  whether we will be able to pull out of Iraq and
  institute stability if Zero does not win. The
  argument is consistent, for example, with the
  view that we cant accomplish these things no
  matter who wins the election.

50
Testing Validity

• If you were to take a class in formal logic, you
  would learn more reliable and technical ways to
  test for validity. When arguments are very
  complicated, you cant always simply see that
  they are valid or invalid.

51
Nondeductive Arguments Can be Good Arguments

• Deductive arguments guarantee the truth of their
  conclusions given the truth of the premises.
• Inductive and abductive arguments do not
  guarantee the truth of the conclusion, but when
  such arguments are strong, they provide good
  evidence that the conclusion is true. If you
  have a good non-deductive argument for a claim,
  then you have reason to believe that it is
  probably true.

52
Dick should not drink the coffee.
53
Inductive and Abductive Arguments

• Inductive Argument (or induction)  A
  nondeductive argument in which characteristics of
  individuals not in a sample are inferred from the
  characteristics of individuals in a sample.
• Abductive argument (or abduction) A form of
  nondeductive inference, also called inference to
  the best explanation in which a hypothesis is
  supported on the ground that it is the best
  explanation for some observed phenomenon.

54
Inductive and Abductive Arguments

• Here is an example of an inductive argument
• (1) 95 of all examined fish from the Otsoga
  river contained dangerous levels of mercury.
• (2) This fish came from the Otsoga river.
• (3) Therefore, this fish (probably) contains
  dangerous levels of mercury.

55
Facts about Inductive Arguments

• Inductive arguments are never valid, but they
  may still be good arguments. Inductive arguments
  are said to be strong when they provide good
  evidence that the conclusion is true, and weak
  when they dont provide good evidence.
• Inductive arguments are Strong when the sample is
  large and representative. They are weak when the
  sample is small or unrepresentative.

56
Weak Inductive Arguments

• 1) All Bobs friends say that they plan to vote
  for Barak Obama.
• 2) Therefore, it seems likely that Obama will
  take Iowa by a landslide.
• Problem Unrepresentative Sample. Bobs
  friends are not likely to be a representative
  sample of Iowans as a whole. If Bob plans to
  vote for Obama, then its likely that many of his
  friends are like-minded voters.

57
Weak Inductive Arguments

• 1) On interviewing six students at the Union, it
  was found that four of them planned to spend the
  summer in Iowa, while two of them planned to go
  abroad.
• 2) Therefore, 33 of ISU students (probably) plan
  go abroad during the summer.
• Problem Sample size too small. Six students
  is too small a number to make predictions about
  the whole student body.

58
Abductive Arguments

• The world must be spherical in shape.  For the
  night sky looks different in the northern and
  southern regions, and this would be so if the
  earth were spherical.   -Aristotle, Physics.
• To put this argument in standard form, we might
  interpret it as follows
• (1) The night sky looks different in the
  northern and southern regions.
• (2) The best explanation for this fact is that
  the earth is round.
• (3) Therefore (probably) the earth is spherical
  in shape.

59
Evaluating Abductive Arguments

• Abductive arguments are stronger if the
  explanation posited in the conclusion is the only
  explanation that will adequately account for the
  phenomenon to be explained, or if it is the most
  likely of a small set of possible explanations.
• Abductive arguments are weaker if there are many
  other plausible explanations that would account
  for the phenomenon, or if we have independent
  reason to believe that the explanation offered is
  unlikely.

60
Evaluating Abductive Arguments

• There is an odd and very loud banging sound
  coming from the classroom upstairs from our own.
• If there were elephants up there, it would
  explain the sounds we hear.
• There are elephants in the room upstairs from our
  classroom.

61
Evaluating Abductive Arguments

• Why is the argument weak?
• There are many alternative explanations for the
  sounds we hear.
• We have independent reason to doubt that there
  are elephants upstairs.

62
Evaluating Abductive Arguments

• When is an abuductive argument weak?
• When the explanation offered is only one of many
  alternative explanations for the sounds we hear.
  
• When alternative explanations are simpler,
  independently more plausible, or otherwise
  preferable to the explanation offered.
• Where there is independent reason to doubt the
  offered explanation.

63
Argument for Analysis

• People may seem to be kind, compassionate, or
  altruistic, but if you really search out the
  basis of their actions you will discover that
  theyre really behaving selfishly. Every
  voluntary action is motivated by the values of
  the actor herself. So in all of our voluntary
  actions, we are pursuing our own ends.
  Exclusively to pursue ones own ends is to be
  selfish. So all of our voluntary actions are
  ultimately selfish.

64
READING PLATO REPUBLIC Book I

• I. PLATO (427-347 BCE)A. Some Background on
  Plato
• Athens in 300BCE a place of high culture and
  intellect, in which philosophic dialogue could
  flourish (this may have been possible only
  because Athenians held slaves- the legacy is a
  mixed one). Plato lived during a time of turmoil
  in Athens.

65
READING PLATO REPUBLIC Book I

• Dialogue form Plato's writings are in the form
  of dialogues- careful philosophical
  conversations, in which one character (usually
  Socrates) propounds Plato's own views. Other
  characters in the dialogues usually have lots of
  lines like "Yes Socrates." "Oh of course
  Socrates" "Why of course, you've made that
  perfectly clear Socrates, you're so clever and
  wise..."
• Others, like Thrasymachus in Republic Book I, are
  usually passionate and bullying, and are driven
  to mouth frothing fury by the inexorable reason
  of Socrates.
• Sophists 'sophistry' Traveling teachers who
  took money for teaching. Plato looked down on
  them, and his contempt is usually reflected in
  the writings of contemporary philosophers, who
  nevertheless accept their paychecks. Plato was
  independently wealthy, and apparently despised
  those who weren't.

66
READING PLATO REPUBLIC Book I

• Sophists 'sophistry' Traveling teachers who
  took money for teaching. Plato looked down on
  them, and his contempt is usually reflected in
  the writings of contemporary philosophers, who
  nevertheless accept their paychecks. Plato was
  independently wealthy, and apparently despised
  those who weren't.

67
READING PLATO REPUBLIC Book I

• A2. Socrates and Plato
• Socrates (469-399 BC)-neglected his work and
  family to wander streets and talk-Oracle at
  Delphi claimed that he was the wisest man alive.
  But Socrates believed that he knew nothing.
  Reasoned that if the Oracle was right, it must be
  because he at least KNEW that he was ignorant,
  while others falsely believed that they had
  knowledge.

68
READING PLATO REPUBLIC Book I

• Socratic Method- asking questions and offering
  counterexamples in a manner which ultimately
  leads the other person to reach the right (or at
  least a better) conclusion.
• Philosopher as GADFLY (to prick at complacently
  held prejudice, and ill founded opinion) or
  MIDWIFE (to help others to give birth to truth,
  by asking the right questions to help them to
  figure out what the answer might be). Meiutic
  method...
• Socrates condemned for being "an evil doer and a
  curious person, searching into things under the
  earth and above the heaven and making the worse
  appear the better cause, and teaching all this to
  others."
• -Many were annoyed by Socrates' manner. (more
  people at his trial sentenced him to death than
  had earlier found him guilty- presumably because
  his defense made them mad at him.

69
READING PLATO REPUBLIC Book I

• Plato
• -Socrates most celebrated student-had two older
  brothers (Glaucon and Adiamantus) They figure in
  the Republic. All were fortunate to come from a
  wealthy and important family. Related on fathers
  side to last king of Athens, on mothers to Solon,
  founder of Athenian Law.-Plato originally named
  Aristocles after his father Ariston, but was
  nicknamed Plato by his wrestling coach, since
  Plato is the Greek word for 'broad.' (Probably
  referred to the width of his forehead or
  shoulders.)-Founded Academy of Athens- a "great
  center of learning and wisdom."

70
READING PLATO REPUBLIC Book I

• How to Read Plato
• 1) First, read the story line, catching the main
  subjects discussed and the main divisions marking
  change of subject or direction.
• 2) Then Go Back and read for more specific
  content of the arguments. Tease out the structure
  of the dialogue and the patterns of reasoning,
  the claims being made, the arguments being
  offered.
• 3) Reconstruct the argument in your own terms,
  including consideration of possible objections or
  alternatives. 4) Go back and see whether Plato
  has actually addressed your objections or
  worries.

71
READING PLATO REPUBLIC Book I

• FORM of DISCUSSIONBOOK I
• Discussion with Cephalus Polemarchus, then...
• Thrasymachus' challenge
• Statement
• Socrates objection
• Thrasymachuss Speech
• Socrates (unsatisfactory) response
• BOOK II GLAUCON AND ADIAMANTUS TAKE UP
  THRASYMACHUS CASEThe rest of the book is a
  response to this strengthened case.

72
READING PLATO REPUBLIC Book I