Follow what I mean, not what I say...

So forward we march in to the depths of the statement. Our task is to find how deep they actually run, especially the unseen pitfalls.

To understand how a simple statement can hold so much power in an argument, we must first understand how a statement is an argument. Don't worry, we'll take a further look into the structure of an argument later. Yes, you'll be able to understand the concept of "getting around the horns of the delimma" soon. But, as we're in no rush, let's just get the basics down.

Any argument has a set of premises and/or assumptions and a conclusion. In any system of logic, even informal ones, there must be a process to get from the premises to the conclusion. Sometimes it's a straight shot; P1 is the antecedent to the conditional P2, and the conclusion is the consequent [A, A->B; B]*. Or, if you like, consider a conjunction elemination; "Apples are fruit and oranges are fruit, therefore apples are fruit."[A&O; A] Simple enough. But othertimes there might be many intermediate steps, even further assumptions that must be made, to get from A to B. Here informal logic has a step up on the formal varieties. This is because, in informal logic, its customary to walk through the proof from premises to conclusion, each step of which may be questioned for its integrity. As such, instead of a 42 step proof possibly relying on only 3 premises, in informal logic we refer to all 41 steps of the proof as individual premises (the 42nd step is, of course, the conclusion and the answer to life, the universe, and everything). What we end up with is a form as follows:
P1
P2
...
_Pn_
C

Luckily this is all you need to know for the moment. We'll talk about the interaction the premises play with one another and how assumptions cause one of the main fallicies in arguments later. Remember, we're still on statements, the building blocks of arguments. Luckily, everything you've just learned about an argument applies to statements, with one little switch. Instead of stacking everything up, we line all the premises out in a row, joining them together with '&'s. Then we simply place a conditional between that mass conjunction and the conclusion, and you've got yourself a statement. P1 & P2 & ... & Pn -> C

Now's a good time to pause for an example. "You're late for work again. You were recently told that if you were late for work again, you're fired. Therefore, there's nothing left to say but you're fired." Now, imagine instead you walk into work with pillow creases still on your forehead and your boss simply says "You're fired." This statement can be seen as a truncated form of the previous argument. "If you're late for work again and it's the case that if you're late for work again then you're fired, then you're fired." For you're boss, the two premises have already been conceded, so he finds them redundant to repeat. But, logically, it follows that they're true, hence it's true that you're fired. For homework, try to map out the argument behind the statement, "You can shove that pink slip right up your ass."

Here's a good place to stop (but please read the * footnote). We're almost done going down into the structure of the statement. In the next segment, we'll talk a little bit about how to undercut a statement by finding it's underlying argument. By the end, you'll be able to take down the Kansas School Board at any town-hall meeting. Till then, have some fun paying attention to the logic of body signals. Or as I call it, really informal logic.


*As you've seen here, I've noted the underlying structure in brackets. I'll try my best to describe things so you understand them without looking at letters and symbols, but it's good to start practicing with them for the later segments. Below I've listed some definitions of terms and symbols for those new to the formal side of things.
~ = 'not' :: ~B = It's not the case that bees make honey.
& = 'and' :: B&E = Bees make honey and Bears eat honey.
v = 'or' :: Bv~B = Either bees make honey or they don't make honey.
-> = 'if...then...' or 'a conditional' :: B->E = If bees make honey then bears eat honey.
antecedent = the B of B->E. If the antecedent is false, then the if/then statement has to be true.
consequent = the E of B->E. If the consequent is true, then the if/then statement has to be true. (some cool things you can do with this later)
<-> = a bi-conditional. B<->E is the same as saying B->E and E->B. Either both E and B are true or both E and B are false for the biconditional to be true.
Also, I'm using ';' to signify 'therefore.' This is used to mark the conclusion, though it is normally marked with three dots (where the angles of an upward pointing triangle would be) or an solid line such as in an elementary subtraction problem. But as I have neither of those on Blogger, the semicolon will suffice.

This will get you through the next couple segments. We'll spend a little time with each of these notions later.


Post Scripts...