Identifying elements of argument and fallacies-please Help!

[chunksmediocrites]

I started working on wrapping my head around the structures of arguments, in an attempt to see if I could find an example of begging the question in a particular argument. Now I am stymied and also want feedback, to help me better understand the subject, and to learn how to identify premises and conclusions in an argument. Logicians, to me!

I am politely asking that this be a thread in which the focus is on the parsing of arguments, rather than thoughts and opinions regarding the individuals involved in the arguments given as examples. I thought about changing the names to help with this, but as context may be important I decided not to do so. I am fine on getting dogged for fucking up my analysis however, and rightly so. Bring forth the learnin' sticks! No bey, not that stick.

My questions: primarily, what are the elements of the argument below? Also, is there an example of begging the question in the argument?

Again, I invite any and all to help me with my analysis and point out any flaws. I used information from here (http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfbxb/class/1900/inf/arguments.htm), here (http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfbxb/class/1900/inf/markers.htm), here (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalarguments/a/argument.htm), and here (http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/claims/premise.html) to guide me.
So here's (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=848456&postcount=75) what was said:

Just to be clear, Hugo didn't say we can't speak of post-modernism. Mick quote-mined that part of a long article in which Hugo spoke rather extensively of post-modernism; I reckon Mick did that to try to show that he's not the only one who can't speak of post-modernism. More social damage from the Mickster.
So here's what I'm seeing:
Just to be clear, Hugo didn't say we can't speak of post-modernism.
I believe this to be a conclusion, because he offers evidence (i.e. a premise) to support it:
Mick quote-mined that part of a long article in which Hugo spoke rather extensively of post-modernism;
I believe this to be a premise: the support davidm gives for believing a conclusion that Hugo didn't say we can't speak of post-modernism; as well a premise to support the conclusion that this is (an example of) "more social damage from the Mickster", that davidm states at the end of the argument.

davidm continues the sentence, using a semicolon, indicating two independent clauses, if closely related:
I reckon Mick did that to try to show that he's not the only one who can't speak of post-modernism.
Here's where I run into a problem. Is this a premise? Because in the paragraph, this clause doesn't actually set forth evidence or reasons for believing any of the identified conclusions. Is this a conclusion, i.e. what is to be inferred from the argument? If it is, then where is the supporting premise, or premises? None of the other statements offer support for davidm's speculation on mickthink's motivations. Is it an inference (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalarguments/a/argument.htm), from the other premises? Again I run into a problem here, because the other statements don't support this clause. Is it simply an assertion/proposition stuck in the middle of an argument? It may be I've been looking at it too long and am missing it. Should I be breaking this clause down into individual elements? Because it seems to be a single statement, and my attempts to break it down have been unhelpful for resolution. Have I misidentified the other clauses, causing confusion? Help!
So the last sentence:
More social damage from the Mickster.
This is a conclusion. As I read it, davidm is referring to mickthinks' quote-mining- the premise for which this conclusion is reached- as an example of social damage.
-----

Anybody have feedback for the analysis? I want to see if I can confirm or correct my analysis, before then examining the argument against the standards for begging the question.

[Ymir's blood]

I really don't see that as an attempt at a syllogism.

[chunksmediocrites]

Yeah, that's the problem I am having, since a syllogism is two premises supporting a conclusion, and instead I'm finding maybe two conclusions, a premise, and a proposition. Is it not an argument, then? The other possibility I've entertained is that there could be some unstated premise (http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html#18) that's in here- which would strengthen a subsequent argument for begging the question- but I've been unable to find such.

[Ymir's blood]

I would say that it's not an argument, but rather an explanation. He isn't trying to come to a conclusion, but rather give evidence for his opinion on what has happened. However, I am completely in the dark as to the context of the quote.

[chunksmediocrites]

However, I am completely in the dark as to the context of the quote.
I don't know if this will help particularly, but here's context:
:thankee: Thanks for the credit, Adam!

Originally Posted by Hugo Holbling http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43790)
The first place we run into trouble when discussing postmodernism is in defining the term itself. The thinkers and ideas often referred to as postmodern disagree amongst themselves —usually significantly—as well as with dictionary versions, while opponents may not always be fair in their characterisations. With this in mind, can we even speak of postmodernism in the first place?Okay, so given what Hugo has said there, can you explain why you, The Lone Ranger, davidm * or anyone else would expect the answer to the question "What do you mean by postmodernism" to be simple, 'make sense', or to correspond to others' usage?

* Especially lil' david
:lol:@ls.thx
Followed by:
One might just as well ask why, given this statement by a person I don't really know on a forum I do not frequent, you so often fall back on the term "postmodern" to dismiss arguments you find objectionable. If we cannot even speak of postmodernism, per Hugo Holbling, are you really even saying anything meaningful when you dismiss someone else's ideas as "postmodern"?
Followed by:
I don't want these to get lost:

One might just as well ask why, given this statement by a person I don't really know on a forum I do not frequent, you so often fall back on the term "postmodern" to dismiss arguments you find objectionable. If we cannot even speak of postmodernism, per Hugo Holbling, are you really even saying anything meaningful when you dismiss someone else's ideas as "postmodern"?

Just to be clear, Hugo didn't say we can't speak of post-modernism. Mick quote-mined that part of a long article in which Hugo spoke rather extensively of post-modernism; I reckon Mick did that to try to show that he's not the only one who can't speak of post-modernism. More social damage from the Mickster.
I slightly modified the quote functions davidm used in this last quote to maintain correct attribution.

[fragment]

The other possibility I've entertained is that there could be some unstated premise (http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html#18) that's in here- which would strengthen a subsequent argument for begging the question- but I've been unable to find such.
Whether an unstated premise begs the question will depend on exactly what the premise is. Natural language discussions frequently have unstated premises, and it's fairly common to let other people fill in the gaps.

Anyway, you're on the right track. I'd go something like:

p1) Hugo wrote rather extensively of post-modernism
c1) Hugo didn't say we can't speak of post-modernism

Note that this doesn't follow deductively, Hugo could have done both, it would make him wrong but it's still possible. Still, if we (unstatedly) assume that Hugo isn't a fool, the premise does provide some support for the conclusion.

p2) Mick quote-mined a longer article
c2) Mick did this to show he's not the only one who can't speak of post-modernism

I'd probably call this an example of inference to the best explanation (http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/best_explanation.html). Again not deductive, and really it can only be somewhat compelling if you include the prior context as an unstated premise, but that's not particularly questionable in the middle of a discussion.

I'm not sure the social damage stuff can be turned into an argument very well, not least because the phrase isn't used in it's ordinary natural language sense. It's referencing the way mick has used the same phrase in the past, so to try to parse this stuff you'd have to dig back and make some inferences of your own about what davidm means by it here. But I guess you could have something like:

p3) Quote-mining in such a way as to misrepresent a source is social damage, whatever that means (unstated premise)
c3) This is an example of social damage from mick

It seems to be the p3 you're having trouble with, as it's unsupported, as well as being unclear as to meaning.

But I reckon that final sentence is mostly about mocking mick anyway.

[chunksmediocrites]

That makes more sense than the analysis I had. I tried stating each sentence or clause clearly, but was worried the attempts were subverting meaning or over-analyzing.

Thanks also for the link to inference to the best explanation!

[Adam]

Yeah, that's the problem I am having, since a syllogism is two premises supporting a conclusion, and instead I'm finding maybe two conclusions, a premise, and a proposition. Is it not an argument, then? The other possibility I've entertained is that there could be some unstated premise (http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html#18) that's in here- which would strengthen a subsequent argument for begging the question- but I've been unable to find such.

I believe the unstated premise that mr. thinks originally took issue with is something like "mickthinks is unable to speak coherently about postmodernism".

To the degree that we can shoehorn what davidm actually said into a formal argument, I suppose it would go something like this:

P1) mickthinks quoted Hugo Holbling as saying that "we" cannot speak of postmodernism
P2) the Hugo Holbling quote was from a longer article in which Hugo Holbling explained that we can, indeed, speak of post-modernism and, in fact, did so at length
C1 from P1 and P2) mickthinks misrepresented Hugo Holbling's ability to speak of postmodernism

P3) mickthinks is unable to speak coherently of postmodernism
C1) mickthinks misrepresented Hugo Holbling's ability to speak of postmodernism
C2 from P3 and C1) mickthinks was attempting to use Hugo Holbling's purported inability to speak of postmodernism to excuse his own inability to speak of postmodernism

Since the conclusion* here has to do with mick's motivation, and not his ability to speak of postmodernism, I don't see how this is question begging.

* - And i agree with fragment and Y'sB that this isn't really a conclusion in the formal sense so much as it is a hypothesis.

[Clutch Munny]

a hypothesis.

Inference to the best explanation, or abductive reasoning, I'd say; taking account of substantial background information as well, no doubt.

[fragment]

Is there a real distinction to be made between the best explanation and a hypothesis? In science, for example, we're inclined to look for good explanations for observations, use those to make new predictions and then we go out and test those explanations. Can we not think of IBE as a sort of hypothesis-generating process?

[Clutch Munny]

The best explanation is a hypothesis. But an inference isn't. I was pointing out that davidm was not just stating a hypothesis, but seemed to be presenting it as supported by an abductive inference.

[Clutch Munny]

(This was your point, too, I thought.)

[fragment]

Ah, gotcha. Cheers.