Something I learned from chapter 7 was that there can be an argument within an argument, a mini-argument. You get one of these when you “knock off an objection.” In the argument about getting another dog, the mini-argument would be the last 3 answers because they are knocking off the 3 objections right before. This new argument makes me wonder if the whole argument can be valid or strong if the mini-argument is weak or invalid. It would probably make the whole argument a bad one because one of the premises would be false or dubious. Another thing I learned was the difference between direct and indirect refutation. With direct refutation you show a premise is dubious the argument is not valid or strong, and a false conclusion. Indirect has to do with reducing to the absurd. In this case a bunch of the claims are bad because of their conclusion.
I believed that a mini argument before reading it in chapter seven was just a small argument. Small arguments usually consist of topics that shouldn’t be taken out of proportion. In Chapter 7, mini arguments consist of a “knock off an objection”. Usually, mini arguments are weak and invalid because regular arguments can have a strong validation, while a mini one has different complicating parts that go along with it. People may claim that there mini argument on something is valid, but they don’t have enough points to back up what they’re saying. People can also not be explaining there arguments clearly enough.
ReplyDelete