#3: The Structure of an Argument

Summary

In this episode of 'Thinking Critically,' host Jonathan Maloney explains the structure of an argument, focusing on its three key components: the premise, the turnstile (words like 'therefore' or 'thus'), and the conclusion. Using examples like flu vaccines, the connection between dogs and mammals, and the debate over vaccines and autism, Maloney emphasizes the importance of understanding arguments logically. He introduces the concept of logical fallacies, such as the false cause fallacy, while preparing listeners for future episodes where he will explain what makes an argument good or bad.

Takeaways

• 💉 The script is a conversation and a podcast episode discussing the structure of an argument, particularly in the context of vaccine safety.
• 📢 The podcast host, Jonathan Maloney, emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and understanding the structure of an argument.
• 🔍 An argument, in philosophical terms, is composed of three parts: premise, turnstile, and conclusion.
• 🌐 The premise provides evidence or reasons for accepting the conclusion, which is the point of the argument.
• ➡️ The turnstile is a transitional word or phrase like 'therefore', 'ergo', or 'hence' that precedes the conclusion.
• 📝 The conclusion is the point that the argument is aiming to establish, derived from the premises.
• 🐶 An example given is that since all mammals have hair and dogs have hair, therefore, dogs are mammals.
• 🌧️ Another example discusses the inductive nature of arguments, where premises do not guarantee the conclusion, such as predicting rain tomorrow based on past patterns.
• 🧠 The script highlights the importance of recognizing logical fallacies, such as assuming correlation implies causation, which is a common误区 in arguments about vaccines and autism.
• 🚫 The host refutes the myth that vaccines cause autism, citing scientific evidence and the consensus of the scientific community.
• 📚 The podcast aims to educate listeners on how to differentiate between good and bad arguments, which will be explored in future episodes.

Q & A

What is the philosophical definition of an argument?

The philosophical definition of an argument is composed of three parts: the premise, the turnstile, and the conclusion.

What is the role of the premise in an argument?

The premise serves as the evidence, reason, or grounds for accepting the conclusion in an argument.

What is the turnstile in the structure of an argument?

The turnstile is a word such as 'therefore', 'ergo', 'hence', or 'thus' that immediately precedes the conclusion in an argument.

What is the conclusion in the context of an argument?

The conclusion is the point or the claim that is being made based on the premises provided in an argument.

Why is it important to understand the structure of an argument?

Understanding the structure of an argument is crucial for critical thinking, as it allows one to evaluate the logic and validity of the claims being made.

What is an example of a good argument provided in the script?

An example of a good argument is: 'All mammals have hair, dogs have hair, therefore dogs are mammals.'

What is an example of an inductive argument mentioned in the script?

An example of an inductive argument is: 'It generally rains on Wednesdays in April, tomorrow is a Wednesday and it is April, therefore it's going to rain tomorrow.'

What is the logical fallacy identified in the argument about vaccines and autism?

The logical fallacy in the argument about vaccines and autism is 'false cause', also known as 'correlation does not imply causation'.

Why is the argument that vaccines cause autism considered bad according to the script?

The argument is considered bad because it is based on a logical fallacy where observing a sequence of events is incorrectly inferred to mean causation.

What is the importance of being able to have difficult conversations as a critical thinker?

As a critical thinker, being able to have difficult conversations is important because it allows one to examine evidence and beliefs without being swayed by emotions, leading to better understanding and decision-making.

What is the main takeaway from the episode regarding the structure of an argument?

The main takeaway is that any argument is composed of premises, a turnstile, and a conclusion, and understanding this structure is fundamental to critical thinking.

Outlines

00:00

💉 Understanding the Structure of an Argument

The paragraph introduces a conversation between a mother and her child about the flu vaccine, highlighting the child's skepticism about vaccines. It serves as a backdrop for the episode's main topic: the structure of an argument. The host, Jonathan Maloney, explains that an argument in philosophy consists of three parts: the premise, the turnstile, and the conclusion. The premise provides evidence or reasons for accepting the conclusion, the turnstile is a transitional word like 'therefore', and the conclusion is the point of the argument. The host emphasizes the importance of understanding this structure for critical thinking.

05:01

🌧️ Examples of Argument Structures

This paragraph provides examples to illustrate the structure of an argument. The first example uses the premise that all mammals have hair and dogs have hair to conclude that dogs are mammals. The second example presents an inductive argument about rain on Wednesdays in April, suggesting it will rain tomorrow because it's Wednesday and April. The host points out that this argument doesn't guarantee the conclusion, indicating the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. The third example is a contentious one about autism and vaccines, where the premise is that a child showed signs of autism after vaccinations, leading to the conclusion that vaccines cause autism. The host notes the logical fallacy in this argument, emphasizing the importance of critical thinking in evaluating such claims.

10:01

🧠 The Importance of Critical Thinking in Arguments

The final paragraph emphasizes the importance of critical thinking in arguments. The host encourages having difficult conversations and not avoiding topics like religion and politics due to emotional reactions. The paragraph concludes with a call to action for the audience to learn how to think critically, to push emotions aside, and to base discussions on facts and evidence. The host assures that understanding the structure of an argument and being able to identify logical fallacies are crucial for making informed decisions and leading a better life. The episode ends with a teaser for the next episode, which will delve into what constitutes a good argument.

Keywords

💡Flu Vaccine

The flu vaccine is a preventive injection that provides immunity against influenza viruses. In the script, the flu vaccine is the catalyst for a discussion about vaccine safety and efficacy, highlighting the importance of vaccines in preventing disease. The conversation emphasizes the flu vaccine's role in public health and the misconceptions some people have about it.

💡Vaccine Safety

Vaccine safety refers to the assessment of potential adverse effects of vaccines. The script addresses concerns about vaccine safety by debunking myths and emphasizing that vaccines, including the flu vaccine, have been proven safe through extensive scientific research and evidence.

💡Vaccine Efficacy

Vaccine efficacy is a measure of how well a vaccine works in preventing disease. The script discusses the flu vaccine's efficacy, asserting that vaccines are not only safe but also effective at preventing the diseases they target, which is a critical point in the argument for their use.

💡Argument Structure

The argument structure, as explained in the script, consists of a premise, a turnstile, and a conclusion. This concept is central to the video's theme of critical thinking. The script uses examples to illustrate how arguments are constructed and the importance of understanding this structure for logical reasoning.

💡Premise

A premise is a statement or proposition that serves as the basis for an argument. In the script, the premise is one of the three components of an argument, providing the evidence or reason for accepting the conclusion. The examples given in the script demonstrate how premises set the foundation for logical conclusions.

💡Turnstile

The turnstile in an argument is a transitional word or phrase that links the premise to the conclusion, such as 'therefore' or 'hence'. The script mentions the turnstile as a part of the argument structure, illustrating how it signals the move from premises to conclusion.

💡Conclusion

A conclusion in argumentation is the final point or the claim that is supported by the premises. The script explains that the conclusion is derived from the premises and is the outcome of the argument's structure, as seen in the examples provided.

💡Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is the objective analysis and evaluation of an argument or statement. The script emphasizes the importance of critical thinking in understanding and evaluating arguments, particularly in contentious topics like vaccine safety.

💡Logical Fallacy

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that undermines the validity of an argument. The script identifies the 'false cause' fallacy, where a correlation is mistaken for causation, as a common error in arguments against vaccines. This concept is crucial for recognizing flawed arguments.

💡Inductive Argument

An inductive argument is one that proceeds from specific observations to a general conclusion. The script uses an example of an inductive argument about rain on Wednesdays in April to illustrate how premises do not guarantee the conclusion, which is a key aspect of understanding argument strength.

💡Evidence

Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a proposition or hypothesis is true. The script stresses the importance of evidence in supporting the premises of an argument, particularly in the context of vaccine safety and efficacy.

Highlights

The podcast host, Jonathan Maloney, discusses his argument with his mother about vaccines and vaccine safety.

Jonathan explains the philosophical structure of an argument, which includes three parts: the premise, the turnstile, and the conclusion.

The turnstile is simply a word like 'therefore,' 'ergo,' or 'thus' that precedes the conclusion.

Jonathan emphasizes the importance of understanding the structure of an argument for critical thinking.

Example: 'All mammals have hair, dogs have hair, therefore dogs are mammals'—a good argument with sound premises and a logical conclusion.

The difference between good and bad arguments will be covered in future episodes.

Jonathan introduces the concept of inductive arguments, where the premises do not guarantee the conclusion.

Example of an inductive argument: 'It generally rains on Wednesdays in April, tomorrow is Wednesday, therefore it will rain tomorrow.' This argument is not guaranteed but follows a pattern.

Jonathan highlights the importance of engaging in difficult conversations, especially regarding controversial topics like vaccines, religion, and politics.

The podcast encourages critical thinkers to push aside emotions and look at facts and evidence objectively.

Jonathan stresses the need for critical thinkers to be open to being wrong and adjusting their beliefs based on evidence.

He explains the logical fallacy of 'false cause' where correlation does not imply causation, using vaccines and autism as an example.

The podcast rejects the claim that vaccines cause autism, citing decades of scientific evidence that disprove this link.

Logical fallacies, like false causes, make arguments bad and should be rejected.

Jonathan ends by encouraging listeners to subscribe and join the journey of learning how to think critically, promising future episodes on identifying good arguments.

Transcripts

[Music]

hey mom what's going on

no the flu vaccine yeah of course I got

it why do you ask

no yes of course I got the flu vaccine

we've been over this with vaccines

before why are you why are you telling

me that I'm crazy for getting it no

vaccines are not a part of some sort of

multi-national conspiracy between

governments and scientists to depopulate

the world no no that's ridiculous

now there's no cancer cells there's no

there's no major toxins no the decades

of scientific evidence point to being

not only overwhelmingly safe but

effective as well at what it does okay

so what why are you getting so angry I'm

going to be fine and so is everyone else

okay look this is ridiculous okay I have

things that I need to work on and I

don't have time to argue with you no I

don't have time now to refrain okay I'm

gonna hang up now okay I love you all

right bye

[Music]

you

welcome back to another episode of

thinking critically I am your host

Jonathan Maloney and today we're gonna

be talking about what exactly the

structure of an argument is because as

you may have just heard I was having

what many would consider an argument

with my own mom about mom

vaccines and vaccine safety vaccine

efficacy in particular was a flu vaccine

the argument that we were having is

different from what I'm going to be

explaining to you now philosophical

definition of an argument within

philosophy is very strict and as a

critical thinker it is imperative that

you understand what exactly this

structure is so let's go ahead and get

started so an argument again this is the

philosophical definition is composed of

exactly three parts the first part is

going to be what's known as the premise

the second part is called the turnstile

and the third portion is the conclusion

and that's it there's just three parts

that have ever composed any argument

that has ever been made that's currently

being made or any argument that will

ever be made in the future is just these

three portions ok so when it comes to

the structure of an argument again you

have the premise the turnstile and then

the conclusion so the premise is going

to be any sort of evidence of reason or

grounds for accepting the conclusion

then you have the turnstile which is

simply just a word such as therefore

ergo hence thus etc that immediately

precedes the conclusion and then the

last portions of the third part of an

argument is going to be the conclusion

itself so that is what exactly is the

point of all of this and I do want to

point out that oftentimes depending on

how you talk to the the turnstile is

excluded from the structure of an

argument because it's kind of minimal

really the meat of an argument is

composed of the premise or premises

and then the conclusion now that you

know how to stretch your an argument

let's go ahead and do a few examples

okay here goes our first example all

mammals have hair dogs have hair

therefore dogs are mammals so if we are

going to analyze this argument from a

purely structural standpoint the

premises are going to be that the first

statement all mammals have hair

the second statement dogs have hair so

again those are the premises and then

the turn style is just going to be the

word therefore and then the conclusion

is that dogs are mammals so again you

have all mammals have hair dogs have

hair

therefore dogs are mammals and that's it

that's the structure of this particular

argument here now it just so happens

that this is a good argument which we'll

get into in a later episode because it

just makes sense logically right because

all mammals do have hair that and dogs

also have hair therefore there must be

mammals and both of those premises that

all mammals have hair and that dogs have

hair are true we know them to be true

through evidence and therefore the

conclusion that we reach that dogs are

mammals sound meaning that it is a good

conclusion so as of right now it's not

important for you to know what a good

and a bad argument is because we're

gonna address that actually in the next

episode but you must understand the

structure so let's go ahead and do

another example to help illustrate the

structure of an argument

it generally rains on Wednesdays in

April tomorrow is a Wednesday and it

also happens to be the month of April

therefore it's going to rain tomorrow

okay so in this example we have two

premises again so we have the premise

that it generally rains on Wednesdays in

April then the second premise is going

to be that tomorrow is Wednesday and it

also happens to be the month of April so

again those are our two premises then we

have the turnstile therefore and the

conclusion which is going to be

therefore it's going to rain

excuse me - therefore just that it's

going to rain so again you have the two

the turnstile therefore and then the

conclusion it's going to rain now you

may be thinking to yourself that this

argument doesn't quite make sense why is

it that just because you put forward or

I have observed that it generally rains

on Wednesdays in April does that

necessarily guarantee that it's gonna

rain tomorrow no actually it doesn't

and this particular argument is actually

considered what's known as an inductive

argument because the premises don't

necessarily guarantee the strength of

the conclusion now that's all that I

must say about that here because we're

gonna go to more detail about good

arguments bad arguments inductive versus

inductive reasoning or arguments in the

next episode but if you had noticed that

something was a bit off about this

argument it's a good thing don't worry

about it and we'll get into more details

next time okay so our last example and

before we get into it I just want to

point out this one's a bit contentious

but that's okay why because it's really

really important that you learn as a

critical thinker to have those hard

conversations you know in society people

say you know you shouldn't talk about

religion you shouldn't talk about

politics because people get too heated

that's true and part of the reason why

they get so heated is because they don't

know how to think critically they can't

sit back and actually have a

conversation about facts they let belief

and emotion get in the way well here at

thinking critically that's what it's all

about you are going to learn how to push

your emotions aside and sit down and be

able to have those difficult

conversations to be able to look for the

facts look for the evidence and tell

yourself that it's okay to be wrong if

I'm wrong so what I'm not gonna get

angry about it I'm going to follow the

evidence listen to it see where it leads

me but I'm at the end of the day I'm not

going to avoid having difficult

conversations or avoid looking at

evidence that contradicts my beliefs

because I know that at the at the end of

the day that I'm going to be better for

it so that's what we're all about so

we're gonna go ahead and tackle this

last one okay here we go for the last

example my neighbors

started to elicit signs of autism around

the age of 1 after receiving a series of

vaccinations

thus vaccines cause autism so here we

only have one kind of longer premise and

that premise is going to be the initial

statement about observing my neighbor's

child who received their a series of

vaccines around the age of 1 and then

started to elicit symptoms of autism or

signs of autism the turnstile just going

to be thus and the conclusion is that

vaccines cause autism now you may be

thinking to yourself that well this

argument is ridiculous but why exactly

is it ridiculous you'd be right because

we have hundreds of studies at this

point over many many years decades in

fact that don't lead linked vaccines to

autism but yet it still lingers and it's

there's entire facebook groups support

groups for people who believe this and

the the the answer from the scientific

community has been the same and it's

been consistent because it's based off

of all of the evidence surrounding this

issue now where exactly does this

argument go wrong and the argument goes

wrong in the premise that so you were

going to you observed immediately that

there were signs of autism after

vaccines and then you're inferring from

that that vaccines cause autism so

there's a there's a fallacy there and

it's actually calls called a false cause

or essentially within the scientific

community refer to this as correlation

doesn't necessarily mean causation

just because you observe two events

occurring at the same time or one event

sequentially sequentially right after

the another after the other doesn't

necessarily mean that the one the

preceding event caused the event that

came later so again this is call called

a false cause and it's actually a

logical fallacy and when you observe

logical fallacies as

learn later on when you observe them

within a premise it actually renders the

argument bad and you should reject it

now again we're gonna go into more

detail about what exactly a logical

fallacy is what's a good argument what's

a bad argument when to accept an

argument when to reject an argument

we're gonna go all into this and later

episodes so if you don't understand that

right now it's okay we'll get into it

it's just really really important that

your takeaway from this particular

episode is that you have the three

portions or just two depending on again

who you listen to

but for this case we have three so we

have the premise then we have the

turnstile and then we have the

conclusion and that's it okay so that's

all that I've got for today folks thank

you so much for tuning in and now that

you know exactly how to structure an

argument or the what the what the

structure of an argument is next time

we're gonna be going into what is a good

argument because it's really really

important that you understand as a

critical thinker what a good argument is

I mean if you think about it all of the

arguments like decisions that you make

in your life

they're preceded by arguments that you

tell yourself and then you go out into

the world and you make these decisions

that direct your life so it's imperative

that you are making that you are

directing your life with a foundation of

good arguments so we're gonna get into

that next time so make sure to subscribe

folks so that way any sort of upcoming

episode releases you will be the first

notified and remember that together we

can help the world to think better

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]

[Applause]

[Music]