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,
here,
here, and
here to guide me.
So
here's what was said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
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, 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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
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.