Problems with Translations

Sign In!

Homework DUE

Review: Argument Diagrams

Translation

Vagueness

Ambiguity

Fallacies involving ambiguity

For next time: Read Chapter 3 pages 77-87
Argument Diagrams (again)


Argument diagrams help us to understand an
argument's structure: how different premises are
meant to support a conclusion
We introduced some symbols to help us represent
these relationships:
= supports or provides evidence for


[x]+[y]
= x and y must both be true to
support a claim
Argument Diagrams: Ex. 1


1. If this is the third week of class then the midterm is in
two weeks
2. If this is the third week of class then the midterm is not
next week

3. This is the third week of class

4. :. The midterm is in two weeks

5. :. The midterm is not next week

There are five claims in this argument. Claims 1-3 are the
premises and 4 & 5 are both conclusions
Example 1
[1]+[3]
[4]
[2]+[3]
[5]
Example 2

1. Professional boxing should be outlawed

2. Boxing almost always leads to brain damage




3. Anything that almost always leads to brain
damage ought to be done away with
4. Professional boxing supports organized crime
5. [unstated] Anything that supports organized crime
should be outlawed
*Moore and Parker. Critical Thinking. 10th ed. Page 62
Example 2
[2]+[3]
[4]+[5]
[1]
Last Example


You must not vote for my opponent. She will overturn
the most important piece of legislation passed in the
last 20 years. If you would overturn that legislation
then you do not understand the needs of the American
people. And she clearly doesn't understand the needs
of Americans because she supported off shoring jobs,
anyone that would do that just doesn't get it. If you
don't understand the needs of the American people
then you don't deserve to be elected by them.
In groups of 3-4, please diagram this argument
New Problems with Translation




We have already seen that translating sentences into
arguments can be difficult
Unstated premises and conclusions must be filled in by
appealing to the Principle of Charity
But unstated premises and conclusions are not the only
problems we can encounter when translating sentences
Sentences themselves may be difficult to understand. If
they are difficult to understand then they are even more
difficult to translate
Obscurity


After Governor Baldridge watched the lion perform,
he was taken to Main Street and fed twenty-five
pounds of red meat in front of the Fox Theater.
If I said anything which implies that I think we
didn't do what we should have done given the
choices we had at the time, I shouldn't have said that

Kids Make Nutritious Snacks

People who protest often get arrested
Vagueness




Vagueness is one of the main reasons a sentence can
be hard to translate
Vagueness has a specific meaning for us however. It
does not mean 'hard to understand'
Vagueness refers specifically to concepts that have
borderline cases that make it hard to tell what
counts as an instance of the concept
Examples of vague concepts: baldness, piles,
premeditation, expensive, important, fast
Vagueness




Why is vagueness so important? How we determine the
boundaries of a concept can make all the difference in
whether an argument is strong or weak
Because vague concepts have borderline cases we may
each set the borders at different places and come to
think we agree or disagree when we really do not
For example: “If you are pro-choice then you are okay
with the murdering of innocent people”
Are any of these terms vague?
Vagueness Example

The terms “pro-choice” and “person” are both vague

Pro-choice represents a spectrum of positions


Much of the debate regarding abortion (and other
cases like those of individuals in persistent vegetative
states) rests on how we understand the concept of
Person
Relying on the vague concept of personhood is
therefore problematic when we try to unpack its
intended meaning using the principle of charity
What to do?

When constructing arguments the best we can do is attempt to settle
vague terms

For example:

1. Something is a person if it has a full set of human genes

2. From conception a fertilized ovum has a full set of human genes

3. :. A fertilized ovum is a person

We might disagree with this argument, we might think personhood
requires cognitive capacities (brain patterns) or physiological ones
(a nervous system) but the vagueness is resolved and the debate is
now clear
Ambiguity


A sentence can be hard to translate because of ambiguity
An ambiguous sentence is a sentence that can be
understood in more than one way

For example: “We open late Friday and Saturday”

What is this sentence saying?

Ambiguity, like vagueness, can complicate arguments. If a
sentence has more than one meaning then two people
could appear to agree or disagree when they merely
misunderstand each other
Two Kinds of Ambiguity


A sentence can be ambiguous for two different
reasons
Semantic Ambiguity: a sentence contains a word or
phrase that could mean two or more different things


Burglar caught with stolen goods, police let him
have it
Syntactic Ambiguity: the structure of a sentence
leaves it open to two or more interpretations

Kids make nutritious snacks
Semantic Ambiguity


Grouping Ambiguity: when it is unclear whether a word
refers to an individual or to a collective
Some nouns can refer to both individuals or to whole
groups. Grouping ambiguity occurs when it isn't clear
which is being referred to

Ex:

1. Reptiles existed before humans

2. My lizard Spot is a reptile

3. :. Spot existed before humans
Grouping Fallacies

The previous example commits the fallacy of division:



Assuming that because something is true of a
group that it is true of every member of that
group
Here's another example: mammals give birth to live
young. I am a mammal :. I give birth to live young.
There is another grouping fallacy that works in the other
direction: the fallacy of composition
Fallacy of Composition




It is also a mistake to assume that because every member of
a group has a property that the group itself also has that
property
1. Most people are in favor of their particular congressional
representatives
2. :. Most people are in favor of Congress
Another example: Each individual human eats less food perday than a cow therefore humans must eat less food per-day
as a group than cows
For next time

Read Chapter 3 pages 77-87