Explore
For Enterprise
Join for Free
Log In

Rutgers University
Become a skilled supply chain leader in 4 months
Earn the Supply Chain Excellence MasterTrack™ Certificate from a top-ranked business school.
Google
Advance your IT career by learning automation with Python
Learn in-demand IT skills with this Professional Certificate from Google. No previous knowledge of coding required.

浏览 Coursera 的全部课程

浏览
顶级课程
企业版
登录
免费加入

Guarding

Loading...

Think Again I: How to Understand Arguments

4.6（1,299 个评分） | 150K 名学生已注册

How to Understand Arguments Think Again: How to Reason and Argue Reasoning is important. This series of four short courses will teach you how to do it well. You will learn simple but vital rules to follow in thinking about any topic at all and common and tempting mistakes to avoid in reasoning. We will discuss how to identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments by other people (including politicians, used car salesmen, and teachers) and how to construct arguments of your own in order to help you decide what to believe or what to do. These skills will be useful in dealing with whatever matters most to you. Courses at a Glance: All four courses in this series are offered through sessions which run every four weeks. We suggest sticking to the weekly schedule to the best of your ability. If for whatever reason you fall behind, feel free to re-enroll in the next session.We also suggest that you start each course close to the beginning of a month in order to increase the number of peers in the discussion forums who are working on the same material as you are. While each course can be taken independently, we suggest you take the four courses in order. Course 1 - Think Again I: How to Understand Arguments Course 2 - Think Again II: How to Reason Deductively Course 3 - Think Again III: How to Reason Inductively Course 4 - Think Again IV: How to Avoid Fallacies About This Course in the Series: When is someone giving an argument instead of just yelling? Which parts of what they say contribute to the argument? Why are they arguing instead of fighting? What are arguments made of? What forms do they take? Think Again: How to Understand Arguments will answer these questions a more. In this course, you will learn what an argument is. The definition of argument will enable students to identify when speakers are giving arguments and when they are not. Next, we will learn how to break an argument into its essential parts, how to put them in order to reveal their connections, and how to fill in gaps in an argument. By the end of this course, students will be better able to understand and appreciate arguments that they and other people present. Suggested Readings: Students who want more detailed explanations or additional exercises or who want to explore these topics in more depth should consult Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic, Ninth Edition, Concise, Chapters 1-5, by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Robert Fogelin. Course Format: Each week will be divided into multiple video segments that can be viewed separately or in groups. There will be short ungraded quizzes after each segment (to check comprehension) and a longer graded quiz at the end of the course.

查看授课大纲

您将学习的技能

Evaluation, Interpretation, Language, Linguistics

审阅

4.6（1,299 个评分）

5 stars
956 ratings
4 stars
266 ratings
3 stars
52 ratings
2 stars
10 ratings
1 star
15 ratings

SB

Nov 03, 2019

Excellent course, extremely worthwhile and very challenging for me. I used this course to help with my logic training for LSAT. I will be continuing on to complete all parts of the full course.

CW

Apr 15, 2019

I've taken several online courses on logic and argumentation. This one stands out by virtue of the professor's enthusiasm and clarity of explanations. Worth every minute I've spent on it.

从本节课中

How to Untangle an Argument

CONTENT: This week’s material will focus on the special language in which arguments are formulated. We will investigate the functions of particular words, including premise and conclusion markers plus assuring, guarding, discounting, and evaluative terms. Identifying these words will enable students to separate arguments from the irrelevant verbiage that surrounds it and then to break the argument into parts and to identify what each part of an argument is doing. The lectures end with a detailed example that uses these tools to closely analyze an op-ed from a newspaper. LEARNING OUTCOMES: By the end of this week’s material, you will be able to: understand three levels of meaning. identify argument markers OPTIONAL READING: If you want more examples or more detailed discussions of these topics, we recommend Understanding Arguments, Ninth Edition, Chapters 3-4.

A Problem for Arguments12:59

Discounting10:25

Evaluation17:11

教学方

Dr. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
Professor
Dr. Ram Neta
Professor

以免费的价格试听课程

脚本

The second common move in arguments that's supposed to solve the skeptical regress problem is guarding. The basic idea of guarding is very simple. It's just making the premises of your argument weaker so that there will be fewer ways in which your opponents can raise trouble for them, or show that they're false. So here's an example. Suppose someone says, we ought not to build any new nuclear power plants because they'll explode. Now wait a minute. How do you know that any of them really will explode? How can you tell that in the future? You don't even know what kinds of standards they're going to be built to. So someone could object to that argument by saying you're not justified in asserting that premise that these new nuclear power plants will explode. So how do you stop that problem? Well, you simply say, well, we ought not to build any new nuclear power plants because some of them might explode. Or even weaker, because I believe that some of them might explode. Now we've got a premise. I believe that some of the new nuclear power plants might explode. That's going to be hard to deny. I mean, what's an opponent going to do? Show that you don't really believe it? Show that it's not true, that they might explode, that there's no possibility that they'll explode, or that any of them will explode? You know I couldn't mean all of them will, just some of them. So by guarding the premise in this way, you make it more likely to be true and less subject to objection. And that's what guarding does. It enables you to start an argument with that premise if other people agree that it's true because it's so weak. You get them to agree to share your assumption by weakening your premises. Now of course, what happens now if someone says wait a minute, they might explode. Sure, and the sun might not come up tomorrow. All kinds of things might not happen or might happen. Might's too weak to establish that we shouldn't have new nuclear power plants. So what you're suggesting is not just that it might happen but that it's likely to happen. And if the chance of it happening really is so slight as to be negligible, then you've weakened the premise too much, and it's not going to follow that we shouldn't have nuclear power plants. So the issue's going to come down to is the risk of them exploding, or some of them exploding, enough to justify the conclusion that we ought not to have them. And that's going to depend on exactly how much risk there is, and by looking at the guarding term, at the might term, and questioning it, and saying, can we replace might with probably, or something like that? Then we're going to have a better handle on how to assess the argument. So, when you see someone using guarding like this you need to ask, why did they put in the guard, And have they put in too much guarding that it's weakened it so much that the conclusion no longer follows? So the general trick of guarding is to weaken the premise, so it's going to be harder to deny, and that's how you argue against guarding. But there are at least three different ways to do this. Okay? One is the extent. The other is probability, and the other is mental. First, guarding by extent. We need a new alcohol officer on our campus, because all students drink too much. Well that's clearly false. Not all students drink too much. Most students drink too much. Well not most, maybe not most. Many students drink too much. Okay many, too many, because it's too much. Some students drink too much. Notice that you can guard or weaken the claim, the premise, from all students drink too much, to most students drink too much, to many students drink too much to some students drink too much. And as you move down that scale, the premise gets harder and harder to deny. So, whether this counts as guarding depends on the expectation. If you expect the claim that most or all students drink too much, then it's guarding to say many, or certainly to say some. But, if you don't expect that many or most or all, than to say some, is simply to say that you're talking about some. So, it's guarding when you weaken it beyond what would otherwise be expected in the context. This standard is going to be hard to apply because it might be difficult to say what the expectations are of the different people involved in a conversation, but that's what guarding is. It's not guarding every time you use the word many or most. It's only guarding when you're expecting all, and the person instead merely claimed many. The second kind of guarding concerns probability. Some people would say it's absolutely certain that O.J. Simpson killed his wife. And other people say well he probably killed his wife, or it's likely that he killed his wife. And others will say, there's a chance he killed his wife, another is, will say, he might have killed his wife. So when you change from, it's certain, to it's probable, or it's likely, or there's a chance, he might have. Again, you're moving down a continuum, and the further you move down that continuum, the easier it is to defend your premise because you're claiming less. And the question is going to be whether you've done it too much. If you simply say he might have killed his wife, therefore he ought to be convicted, that's clearly wrong. If you say probably killed his wife, so he ought to be convicted, that might be wrong, too, if there's a strong burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But you don't want to require that it's certain that he killed his wife because then you'll never be able to convict any criminals. So you need something like almost certain. You know, it's a bit of a fudge word, or beyond a reasonable doubt. In any case, however you assess whether or not he should have been convicted depending on how you assess how likely it was he really did what he was accused of, apart from all those questions, the point here is simply that in arguments in general, you can make the argument more defensible by weakening the premise so there are fewer ways to show that the premise is wrong. And that's the second type of guarding. Now a third type of guarding we can call mental, because it has to do with the mental state of the person asserting the premise. You might say, well, I know that the President is 50 years old. But you might say, I believe that the President is 50 years old. You might say, I tend to believe, or, I'm inclined to believe that the President is 50 years old. And there's another continuum as you move from knowledge to belief to inclination to believe. Again, you're making the premise weaker and weaker, which makes it harder and harder to question or deny or doubt that premise. So you avoided a problem for your argument, and potentially this is a way to, stop the skeptical regress.

探索我们的目录

免费加入并获得个性化推荐、更新和优惠。

Coursera 致力于普及全世界最好的教育，它与全球一流大学和机构合作提供在线课程。

© 2020 Coursera Inc. 保留所有权利。

通过 Google Play 获取

Coursera
关于
管理团队
工作机会
目录
证书
MasterTrack™ 证书
学位
企业版
政府版
面向校园

社区
Learners
Partners
Developers
Beta Testers
Translators

连接
博客
Facebook
领英
Twitter
Instagram
YouTube
技术博客

更多
条款
隐私
帮助
内容访问
媒体
联系我们
目录
附属公司