──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Don't forget to check out our first article on Logic and Argumentation - part 1 HERE.
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The second reason that underscores the importance of a claim or statement lies in its ability to facilitate clarity and precision in our use of language. When we say that a sentence can function as a claim within an argument, we imply that there is a shared understanding of the sentence’s meaning among all relevant parties - both the person presenting the argument and the intended audience.
Understanding the meaning of a sentence, in this context, means comprehending what it would mean for the sentence to be true or false. This involves being able to mentally distinguish between a scenario where the sentence is true and one where it is false.
For a sentence to function as a claim, premise, or conclusion within an argument, there must be a shared understanding of what the sentence asserts. If the sentence is too vague or its meaning ambiguous, it cannot function as a claim or an argument because we would not have a clear understanding of what is being discussed.
The requirement for a sentence to function as a claim is not trivial; it is quite demanding. Not all pieces of language make assertions, and not all assertions are sufficiently clear in their meaning to function as claims.
Before we can evaluate whether an argument is good or bad, we need to have a shared understanding of what the argument entails. This requirement is encapsulated in the notion that an argument comprises claims that can be true or false.
In practice, this means that ideally, everyone should have a shared understanding of what the argument is about and what the premises assert. If there is disagreement about the issue at hand or what is being asserted, then it becomes necessary to clarify the issue and arguments until all parties have a shared understanding of the argument. Only then can we engage in a rational discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the argument.
1. First and second principle
The first principle is known as the “principle of bivalence”. This principle posits that a claim can only assume one of two truth values - true or false. There is no middle ground such as half-true or almost true. The second principle, known as “the principle of non-contradiction”, stipulates that a claim cannot be both true and false simultaneously. It must be either one or the other, and asserting otherwise would result in a contradiction.
Interestingly, there exist alternative systems of logic where these principles are not strictly adhered to, allowing for the exploration of different reasoning systems. However, in the context of classical logic, these principles are assumed to hold true.
The importance of defining claims in this manner lies in its implications for argumentative discourse. Not all sentences qualify as claims within this context. For instance, questions do not count as claims since they do not assert anything that could be true or false. Consider the question, “Do you prefer coffee over tea?” This is merely a request for information and does not assert any truth value.
Similarly, commands or imperatives do not qualify as claims. For example, the command “Close the door behind you” is a directive for action and it makes no sense to question whether this action is true or false.
Therefore, it becomes clear that not every piece of language can be classified as a claim. Consequently, not every piece of language can serve as a premise or conclusion in an argument. This understanding is crucial for constructing and evaluating logical arguments.
The first principle is known as the “principle of bivalence”. This principle posits that a claim can only assume one of two truth values - true or false. There is no middle ground such as half-true or almost true. The second principle, known as “the principle of non-contradiction”, stipulates that a claim cannot be both true and false simultaneously. It must be either one or the other, and asserting otherwise would result in a contradiction.
Interestingly, there exist alternative systems of logic where these principles are not strictly adhered to, allowing for the exploration of different reasoning systems. However, in the context of classical logic, these principles are assumed to hold true.
The importance of defining claims in this manner lies in its implications for argumentative discourse. Not all sentences qualify as claims within this context. For instance, questions do not count as claims since they do not assert anything that could be true or false. Consider the question, “Do you prefer coffee over tea?” This is merely a request for information and does not assert any truth value.
Similarly, commands or imperatives do not qualify as claims. For example, the command “Close the door behind you” is a directive for action and it makes no sense to question whether this action is true or false.
Therefore, it becomes clear that not every piece of language can be classified as a claim. Consequently, not every piece of language can serve as a premise or conclusion in an argument. This understanding is crucial for constructing and evaluating logical arguments.
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
2. Clarity and precisionThe second reason that underscores the importance of a claim or statement lies in its ability to facilitate clarity and precision in our use of language. When we say that a sentence can function as a claim within an argument, we imply that there is a shared understanding of the sentence’s meaning among all relevant parties - both the person presenting the argument and the intended audience.
Understanding the meaning of a sentence, in this context, means comprehending what it would mean for the sentence to be true or false. This involves being able to mentally distinguish between a scenario where the sentence is true and one where it is false.
For a sentence to function as a claim, premise, or conclusion within an argument, there must be a shared understanding of what the sentence asserts. If the sentence is too vague or its meaning ambiguous, it cannot function as a claim or an argument because we would not have a clear understanding of what is being discussed.
The requirement for a sentence to function as a claim is not trivial; it is quite demanding. Not all pieces of language make assertions, and not all assertions are sufficiently clear in their meaning to function as claims.
Before we can evaluate whether an argument is good or bad, we need to have a shared understanding of what the argument entails. This requirement is encapsulated in the notion that an argument comprises claims that can be true or false.
In practice, this means that ideally, everyone should have a shared understanding of what the argument is about and what the premises assert. If there is disagreement about the issue at hand or what is being asserted, then it becomes necessary to clarify the issue and arguments until all parties have a shared understanding of the argument. Only then can we engage in a rational discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the argument.
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Don't forget to check out our first article on Logic and Argumentation - part 1 HERE.
0 Comments