1. Lecture 1-5
1.1. Purposes of argument 0:10
1.1.1. Justification
1.1.2. Explanation
1.2. arguments are made out of language 0:50
1.2.1. animal language 1:16
1.2.1.1. arguing goat 1:39
1.2.1.1.1. humans- the animal that argues 2:08
1.3. "Materials" of argument - language 0:40
1.3.1. important 2:56
1.3.1.1. Helen Keller 3:06
1.3.2. conventional 4:20
1.3.2.1. correct side of road 4:40
1.3.2.2. football / soccer 5:28
1.3.2.3. money / socks arbitrary name 6:01
1.3.3. representational limits 6:32
1.3.3.1. Lincoln 5 legged horse 6:47
1.3.3.2. money / socks, poor / rich 7:32
1.3.4. social limits 8:06
1.3.4.1. mega lemons 8:40
1.3.4.2. monty python anagrams 9:28
1.4. Rules of the language
1.4.1. semantics - meaning 10:11
1.4.1.1. gimme pepperoni 10:26
1.4.2. physical production 10:57
1.4.2.1. volume, pronunciation 11:07
1.4.3. structural combination 11:15
1.4.3.1. syntax, spelling, grammar 11:21
1.4.4. etiquette 11:30
1.4.5. finger / singer 12:10
1.4.5.1. subconscious rule
2. if the word in the first blank has an effect in the world then it is a speech act
3. see Mars example 7:20
4. if - then, if might seem like argument, but by itself it is NOT 10:05
5. the goal is to increase understanding 2:00
6. how to avoid fallacies 5:54
6.1. vagueness 6:00
6.2. ambiguity 6:01
6.3. irrelevance 6:02
6.4. begging the question 6:10
7. definition of an argument 6:26
7.1. a series of sentences, statement, and propositions
7.2. some are premises one is the conclusion
7.3. premises give reasons for the conclusion
8. Persuasion
9. "I don't like fish"
9.1. just a personal preference, no explanation required
10. not as good as "good"
11. some philosophers say the word "good" is just a way of expressing emotions or maybe telling us what to do 0:29
11.1. thats not the whole story, good as Preference vs good as Evaluation 0:49
11.1.1. Duke 0:55
11.1.1.1. "YAY Duke!"
11.1.1.1.1. just a personal expression of emotion-no explanation required
11.1.1.2. "Duke has a good team"
11.1.1.2.1. needs an explanation to back it up
11.1.2. healthcare 1:29
11.1.2.1. "YAY healthcare"
11.1.2.1.1. no explanation required
11.1.2.2. "my healthcare plan is good for the country"
11.1.2.2.1. needs an explanation to back it up
11.1.3. fish 1:35
11.1.3.1. "it is immoral/wrong to eat fish"
11.1.3.1.1. needs an explanation to back it up
11.1.4. the general difference 2:28
11.1.4.1. expressing personal preference
11.1.4.1.1. requires no explanation, it just is
11.1.4.2. making an evaluation
12. explanation = joining generalization (justification), prediction BUT vice versa does not always work is this part correct? I got a little lost here.
12.1. ??? 5:39
12.1.1. Bodes law example 8:29
12.1.2. Aids example 9:47
13. what arguments are not 2:26
13.1. monty python 0:40
13.2. they are not fights 1:00
13.3. they are not abuse 1:55
13.4. not a complaint 2:25
13.5. contradiction 3:00
14. life on Mars example 0:42
15. tricky cases 9:50
15.1. contextually evaluative 9:56
15.1.1. general meaning of word is not positive or negative
15.1.2. they only suggest an evaluation in certain context 10:06
15.1.2.1. for example liberal is a neutral word
15.1.2.1.1. but to a conservative -liberal is bad
15.1.2.1.2. but to a liberal- liberal is good
15.1.3. not evaluative in the strict sense 10:58
15.1.4. only evaluative in context 11:05
15.1.5. we will call language evaluative only when it is openly and literally evaluative 11:20
15.1.6. if the speaker is not saying this is good/bad right/wrong etc. they're not really using language we will call evaluative. 11:42
15.2. combining positive and negative evaluation words 11:57
15.2.1. good
15.2.1.1. positive
15.2.2. pretty
15.2.2.1. positive
15.2.3. pretty good
15.2.4. darn
15.2.4.1. negative
15.2.5. pretty darn good
15.2.5.1. means very good
15.2.6. must think of meaning rather than follow a simple formula, to determine positive or negative
15.3. too 12:57
15.3.1. if spicy
15.3.1.1. is good
15.3.2. too spicy
15.3.2.1. is bad
15.3.3. "too" takes a neutral or positive word and makes it bad so "too" is a negative evaluation word
16. saying something is good/bad, right/wrong,moral/immoral
16.1. requires explaining reasons for backup
17. Decisions are based on reasons (example court, evangelist) 2:40
18. if you don't know the premise you can't know the conclusion since the premise is the conclusion
19. Take the passage and mark Reason, Conclusion, Assuring, Guarding, Discounting, Evaluative Term and positive and negative evaluative terms 00:45
20. there is life on Mars because there is life on Mars
20.1. once again this is a big problem
21. how to analyze arguments 3:35
21.1. find arguments 3:50
21.2. distinguish arguments from passages 4:10
21.2.1. i think these limbs to the left should be branching off of course map in lecture 1-1 but somehow they keep appearing up here
21.3. order arguments 4:33
21.4. find missing parts 4:40
22. Week 1
22.1. Lecture 1-1
22.1.1. Having reasons for arguments
22.1.2. Course map
22.1.2.1. how to evaluate deductive arguments 4:50
22.1.2.1.1. purpose of argument 4:58
22.1.2.1.2. categorical argument 5:14
22.1.2.2. how to evaluate inductive arguments 5:21
22.1.2.2.1. statistical generalization 5:28
22.1.2.2.2. application 5:32
22.1.2.2.3. inference 5:34
22.1.2.2.4. arguments from analogy 5:38
22.1.2.2.5. causal reasoning 5:39
22.1.2.2.6. probability 5:40
22.1.2.2.7. decision 5:41
22.2. Lecture 1-2
22.2.1. what argument are
22.2.1.1. the include reason 3:31
22.2.1.2. it is an intelectual process
22.2.1.3. it is a series of statements to establish a define or understand proposition 3:49
22.2.1.4. arguements are ordered to a structure 4:50
22.2.2. uses of arguments 4:10?
22.2.2.1. establish propositions 4:17
22.2.2.2. explanation of proposition 5:25
22.2.2.3. understanding of propositions 5:52
22.3. Lecture 1-3
22.3.1. Try to seperare what arguer is trying
22.3.1.1. purpose of persuading or convincing (often good and bad reasons)
22.3.1.2. purpose of justification of reasons for a belief (usually good reasons)
22.3.2. Purposes people have for giving arguments 0:27
22.3.2.1. Persuading- making people believe or do something that they would not otherwise believe or do 1:20
22.3.2.2. Justifying-showing someone reasons to believe a conclusion that they may or may not already believe 2:05
22.3.2.2.1. not necessarily trying to achieve a certain outcome,just trying to help some one understand good reasons to make their own decision 2:58
22.3.2.3. Persuaders and Justifiers may use the same argument, the difference lies in their intent. 3:30
22.3.2.3.1. Used car salesman persuades 3:40
22.3.2.3.2. friend justifies 3:44
22.3.2.4. Arguers intent determines classification of argument 4:40
22.3.2.4.1. Persuasion- the arguer is trying to change someones mind 4:47
22.3.2.4.2. Justification- the arguer is trying to give reasons to believe something, may just be a confirmation of already held beliefs 4:55
22.4. Lecture 1-4
22.4.1. A purpose of arguments is explanation 0:20
22.4.1.1. explaining- is giving a reason why something happened, or why it is true 0:58
22.4.1.2. everyone believes the conclusion 1:16
22.4.1.3. kinds of explanations 2:25
22.4.1.3.1. casual 2:32
22.4.1.3.2. teleological - purposeful 2:47
22.4.1.3.3. formal 3:12
22.4.1.3.4. material 3:32
22.4.1.4. can use all explanation types for the same event
22.4.1.4.1. train whistle explanations 4:07
22.4.1.4.2. skydiving explanations 5:06
22.4.1.5. explanation is an attempt to fit a particular phenomenon into general pattern in order to increase understanding and remove bewilderment or surprise 10:50 & 12:30
22.4.1.5.1. show that it is kind of like other things that have happened before 11:30
22.4.1.6. explanation is- not persuasion, not justification, not generalization and not prediction 12:38
22.5. Lecture 1-6
22.5.1. misspelling and mispronunciation don't make arguments bad 00:35
22.5.2. focus on rules of language that deal with meaning 0:55
22.5.3. levels of language
22.5.3.1. linguistic level - meaning 01:30
22.5.3.1.1. referential or descriptive theory is not relevant 02:25
22.5.3.1.2. meaning is use 03:30
22.5.3.1.3. language used in different way 05:10
22.5.3.2. speech act level - advise, even without action influence 06:13
22.5.3.3. conversational level - persuasion, bringing effect 06:45
22.6. Lecture 1-7
22.6.1. linguistic level 00:20
22.6.1.1. order a set of words that are meaningful according to semantic, syntax-grammar, 00:30
22.6.1.2. components of language - meaningful words 01:10
22.6.1.3. meaningful words with wrongs structure don't work - no meaning 02:40
22.6.1.4. even with right structure and meaningful word don't always make sense - Chomsky 03:10
22.6.1.5. sometimes in not clear is it meaningful or not - examples (garden path sentences) 03:40
22.6.1.6. buffalo buffalo buffalo 04:55
22.7. Lecture 1-8
22.7.1. speech acts 0:05
22.7.1.1. examples 0:15
22.7.1.1.1. baseball batter: "am I out or do I walk?" umpire:"you aint nuttin till I say so"
22.7.1.1.2. bride:"i do", husband:"i do" official:" I now pronounce you husband and wife"
22.7.1.2. thereby test 1:58
22.7.1.2.1. by uttering "i now pronounce you husband and wife"
22.7.1.2.2. if I say"_______" then I thereby ___________.
22.7.1.2.3. if I promise you then i thereby promise
22.7.1.2.4. if I thank you then I thereby thank you
22.7.1.2.5. if I apologize then I thereby apologize
22.7.1.3. speech acts only valid under certain circumstances 3:53
22.7.1.3.1. the pronouncer must have legal authority
22.7.1.3.2. the bride and groom must have a license
22.7.1.3.3. in some jurisdictions they must be of different sexes
22.7.1.4. thereby test updated 5:25
22.7.1.4.1. if I say "__________"under the appropriate circumstances then I thereby ______________.
22.7.1.4.2. if I promise to come to your party under the appropriate circumstances
22.7.1.4.3. if I thank you for the cheese under the appropriate circumstances
22.7.1.4.4. if I apologize for spilling wine on your white carpet under appropriate circumstances
22.7.1.5. special circumstances 6:35
22.7.1.5.1. depending on if the promised outcome is desired by the recipient the speech act may be 6:40
22.7.1.5.2. circumstances effect if a speech act took place at all 7:12
22.7.1.6. why speech acts matter to this class 8:05
22.7.1.6.1. arguing is a speech act
22.7.1.6.2. justifying and explaining are speech acts
22.7.1.7. "I suggest you buy the book" is a speech act 8:50
22.8. Lecture 1-9
22.8.1. conversational act 00:13
22.8.1.1. informing is a conversational act 01:30
22.8.1.2. speech acts and their associated effects 01:49
22.8.1.2.1. question - answer
22.8.1.2.2. apology - forgiveness
22.8.1.2.3. promise - reliance
22.8.1.3. definition of a conversational act 02:27
22.8.1.4. conversational act does not occur when the effect does not occur 02:40
22.8.1.4.1. the firing a gun example 03:00
22.8.1.5. example with the baker 03:45
22.8.1.5.1. right ingiredients
22.8.1.5.2. right order
22.8.1.5.3. right time
22.8.1.6. rules of conversational act (cooperative communication) 04:35
22.8.1.6.1. conversational maxims 05:30
22.8.1.6.2. quantity - don't say more then you need and don't say to little 05:55
22.8.1.6.3. quality - don't lie, mislead, deceive or you have no reason to beleive 06:15
22.8.1.6.4. relevance - be relevant 07:00
22.8.1.6.5. manner - be brief, orderly, avoid obscurity, ambiguity 07:40
22.8.1.7. conversational implication 09:50
22.8.1.8. possibility of misleading (noncooperative communication) 11:20
22.8.1.9. cancel conversational implication 11:48
22.8.1.9.1. if sentence p conversationally implies sentence q then you can deny q and p still might be true 12:10
22.8.1.9.2. conversational implication is not logical implication 12:30
22.8.1.10. issues of leaving out information
22.8.1.10.1. politician example 13:45
22.8.1.10.2. politician is not following the maxims of quantity (he is not having a common purpose) - 15:40
22.8.1.11. distinction between conversational implication and logical entailment 16:15
22.8.1.11.1. How to refuse arguments 16:22
22.8.1.11.2. when you don't like the premise because it is misleading or conversational implies something false that's not a way to show that the premise is false 16:25
22.8.1.11.3. to show that a premise is false you have to show that it actually logically entails something that is false is contains something that is logically 16:35
23. Week 2
23.1. Lecture 2-1
23.1.1. Language of argument is important 00:10
23.1.2. Definition of argument 00:25
23.1.3. word indicate that some sentences are reasons for others 01:00
23.1.3.1. AND and SO exapmple - switchign or not switching 01:10
23.1.3.2. SO indicates that one sentence is a reason for the other 02:00
23.1.4. Argument markers 03:20
23.1.4.1. Conclusion markers 03:33
23.1.4.1.1. sometimes it is not clear - be careful, think, check content; example: the "since" reason marker 05:00
23.1.4.1.2. the sentence BEFORE the marker is a reason, the other is a conclusion - 03:35
23.1.4.1.3. examples: therefore, thus, hence, accordingly 02:40
23.1.4.1.4. sometimes it is not clear - be careful, think, check content; example: "so" 06:45
23.1.4.2. Reason markers 04:00
23.1.4.2.1. the sentence AFTER the marker is a reason or a premise 04:10
23.1.4.2.2. examples: because, for, as, for the reason that, and the reason why 04:29
23.1.4.2.3. another "since " example 07:40
23.1.5. substitute trick for clearing - substitute with "because" 08:17 or ask 09:10
23.2. Lecture 2-2
23.2.1. order of arguments, not order of words 00:15
23.2.1.1. example of professor and teaching 00:35
23.2.2. standard form 01:20
23.2.2.1. state premises ABOVE THE LINE and use dot pyramid for conclusion BELOW THE LINE 01:45
23.3. Lecture 2-3
23.3.1. A Problem for Arguments
23.3.1.1. When are premises real reasons for a conclusion? 0:18
23.3.1.2. An argument cannot justify you in believing that the conclusion is true unless you are justified in believing that the premises are true 1:59
23.3.1.3. The Problem of Skeptical Regress 3:20
23.3.1.3.1. you can't believe the conclusion of Argument (A)unless you can believe the premises of argument (A) 2:15
23.3.1.3.2. FAULTY solutions to the problem of skeptical regress 3:35
23.3.1.3.3. BETTER (but still not perfect) solutions to the problem of Skeptical Regress (AKA practical every day life solutions) 9:18
23.3.1.4. summary of this lecture 11:43
23.3.1.4.1. In order to get around the problem of skeptical regress and get the argument started, you need to find shared assumptions with your audiaence.
23.4. Lecture 2-4
23.4.1. Solving Skeptical Regression using 00:20
23.4.1.1. Assuring 00:33
23.4.1.1.1. Example: I assure you that smoking is bad for your health 00:38
23.4.1.1.2. Same as "it's obvious", "Everybody knows", "clearly", "certainly" 01:00
23.4.1.1.3. Forcing to accept premises without citing 01:25
23.4.1.1.4. Good: if I don't give you a reason, you can't question the reason 01:40
23.4.1.1.5. Type of assurances 02:18
23.4.1.1.6. assurances are needed because of the limited time, one can't check everything 09:00
23.4.1.1.7. we want an assurance when 12:30
23.4.1.1.8. assurances are not appropriate when 12:55
23.4.1.2. Guarding
23.4.1.3. Discountng
23.5. Lecture 2-5
23.5.1. guarding - making premises of your arguing weaker so it is harder to object to them 00:20
23.5.1.1. The question is: how much weakening?
23.5.1.1.1. example: nuclear power plants explode - unjustified premise 00:35
23.5.1.1.2. opponents respond by point at "too weak" - might is to weak, sin might not come tomorrow 02:00
23.5.1.1.3. to weaken so much that a chance to happen is so slight to be negligible is not good 02:20
23.5.1.2. To judge the guarding is to question
23.5.1.2.1. Why is guarding used?
23.5.1.2.2. Is it weakened the premise to much that the conclusion no longer follows?
23.5.1.3. Three ways of doing guarding 03:30
23.5.1.3.1. Extent 03:40
23.5.1.3.2. Probability 05:30
23.5.1.3.3. Mental 07:19
23.6. Lecture 2-6
23.6.1. Discounting - citing a possible criticism in order to reject it or counter it 00:10
23.6.1.1. Example: buying a ring, expensive but beautiful 00:25
23.6.1.1.1. saying expensive
23.6.1.1.2. saying beautiful
23.6.1.1.3. in the contrast of the two claims
23.6.1.1.4. emphasizes the second claim about beauty (more important) 01:25
23.6.1.2. the word order is sometimes important (and, but, because) 02:05
23.6.1.2.1. expensive but beautiful - for buying
23.6.1.2.2. beautiful but expensive - against buying
23.6.1.3. Functions of discounting terms 04:00
23.6.1.3.1. they contrast the two claims
23.6.1.3.2. They emphasize one of the claims
23.6.1.4. Different terms
23.6.1.4.1. with the "but" word you can discount the objection 02:30
23.6.1.4.2. you can do the same with "although" 03:30
23.6.1.4.3. you can also use even if, even though, whereas, nevertheless, nonetheless, still 04:10
23.6.1.4.4. some of these word have also other meanings 04:45
23.6.1.4.5. you can check with substitution method 04:50
23.6.1.5. intention to use this terms 05:25
23.6.1.5.1. state it before the oponent does
23.6.1.5.2. in order to head off the objection
23.6.1.5.3. in order to protect the premises
23.6.1.5.4. to avoid skeptical regression
23.6.1.6. tricks with discounting words 06:10
23.6.1.6.1. trick of discounting straw (easy to knock over) people - picking the easiest objections 06:20
23.6.1.6.2. combine with other tricks (using guarding terms and assuring terms) 07:55
23.6.1.6.3. a rule of thumb 09:15
23.7. Lecture 2-7
23.7.1. Evaluation
23.7.1.1. Evaluative Language is another way to stop the Skeptical Regress
23.7.1.1.1. politician health care plan-example 0:17
23.7.1.1.2. YAY Duke-example
23.7.1.1.3. understanding evaluative language
23.8. Lecture 2-8
23.8.1. Close analysis 00:37
23.8.1.1. Example by Robert Redford 02:26
23.9. Lecture 2-9
23.10. Lecture 2-10
24. you could prove anything with circular reasoning and you could also prove the opposite 6:58
25. we use language to bring about a change in the world 00:20
25.1. asking
25.2. getting premsion
25.3. legal rights
26. Lecture 3-2
27. Lecture 3-1
27.1. Lecture 3-3
27.1.1. Lecture 3-4