Chapter 12 Lecture Notes
Conductive Arguments and
Counterconsiderations
Chapter 12
Conductive arguments were defined and developed by
philosophy Carl Wellman.
In order to understand conductive arguments, it is useful to
think back to the convergent support patters defined in
chapter two like figure 2.12 to the right. Included we also
have figure 12.1 to the right where there are more
convergent reasons to the same conclusion.
Chapter 12
When evaluating conductive arguments, we still use the
ARG conditions.
The (A) condition still applies to each premise. Are the
acceptable.
The (R) condition of relevance is assessed to each premise
separately.
The (G) condition of good grounds, for conductive
arguments we consider the premises together, in the
light of other evidence that might count against the
conclusion.
Chapter 12
Some additional names for conductive argument might help
explain how they work:
(i) Cumulation of consideration arguments
(ii) Balance of consideration arguments
(iii) Good reasons arguments
(iii) Makes sense as a name b/c these kind of argument
aren’t deductive and they aren’t IBEs, analogies, or
inductive generalizations, but the reasons in these
arguments might not be good because they commit
some fallacy or other and thus we won’t use (iii)
Chapter 12
Conductive argument premises are put forward separately
as relevant to the conclusion. Some analysts think this
is a reason to break conductive arguments into separate
arguments. We will not adopt this approach for three
basic reasons.
(i) Diverse considerations in conductive arguments are characteristically put
forward together.
(ii) If we broke the conductive argument into separate arguments, we would
have difficulty evaluating the premises that are put forth together.
(iii) Several prominent, credible authorities on logic claim they exist.
See pages 353 to 354 for a fuller discussion.
Chapter 12
“Conductive arguments are common in reasoning about
practical affairs, where a number of separate factors
have a bearing on decisions about what to do” (354)
Legal arguments
Scientific arguments
Human behavior
Literary texts
Historical events
All of these kinds of topics and argument are ripe for
conductive argument forms.
Chapter 12
In a cogent conductive argument, the premises must be
positively relevant to the conclusion. When there are
reasons to count against a premise this is called a
counterconsideration.
We can diagram counterconsiderations similar regular
arguments see figure 12.3 below. The wavy lines are
counterconsiderations.
Chapter 12
Contrary to the diagram, counterconsiderations are not put
forward as premises by the arguer. When
counterconsiderations are put forward they are not
thought to outweigh the rest of the premises in the
conductive argument.
It is acceptable to point out counterconsiderations in you
argument as a way to deal with possible objections
before the happen. It is a way to show that the possible
objection is not as relevant as the other premises.
Chapter 12
Here are some classic words that introduce
counterconsiderations:
Though
Although
Even though
Despite the fact that
Notwithstanding the fact that
While granting that
Even granting that
Even allowing that
Admitting that
See page 356 for a detailed explanation of these terms.
Chapter 12
Here is a list of terms that indicates a return to the main
theme after the introduction of a counterconsideration.
Nevertheless
Yet
Still
Even so
However
And yet
But
Notwithstanding the fact that
Acknowledging a counterconsideration does not weaken an
argument, but in fact, can strengthen a conductive
argument. Review counterconsiderations pages 355-7.
Chapter 12
It is very difficult to give general guidelines for evaluating
conductive arguments.
For the (A) and (R) conditions, things are the same as with
all other arguments. Where things get difficult is when
we are considering good grounds, the (G) condition.
When it comes to (G) we have to consider the collective or
cumulative force of the premises. How well do they
support the conclusion as a collective. This is different
that deductive and other inductive arguments. See
pages 359-66 for a detailed example.
Chapter 12
Counterconsiderations (or objections) in other contexts.
A counterconsideration for non-conductive arguments is
just an objection. Considering objections or
counterconsiderations is an important part of argument
analysis.
For deductive arguments the only way to object to them if
the (R) and (G) conditions are satisfied via deductive
validity, is to object to the (A) condition of the premises.
Chapter 12
Just like deductive arguments, inductive arguments,
inductive generalizations, statistical syllogisms,
analogies, and abductive arguments can have objections
to the premises or the (A) condition.
The difference between these argument forms and
deductive arguments is that we can object to the (R) and
(G) conditions that govern these arguments as well.
This means that there are other considerations for these
arguments than acceptable premises.
Chapter 12
One thing that is very important to understanding
arguments and objections is to be able to express
alternative positions. If you cannot understand the
position of another person or arguer, then you cannot
object to it in a relevant way.
Being able to think of other positions inconsistent with
one’s own is a skill that can be developed, and must be
developed in order to generate relevant objections to
arguments.
Chapter 12
One of the reasons to work on understanding alternative
positions and objections is because of the psychological
fact of confirmation bias.
“Confirmation bias is the tendency to notice, credit, and
recall information and argument that support one’s own
beliefs and opinions wile ignoring, forgetting, or
discrediting information and arguments that disconfirm
those beliefs and opinions” (375)
Learning to provide relevant objections is as important to
analysis as finding the premises and conclusion.
Chapter 12
Terms to review:
Alternative position
Conductive argument
Confirmation bias
Generality of reasons
Tunnel vision
Ceteris paribus
Ceteris paribus clause
Counterconsideration
Objection