Philosophy

In a good philosophical argument, must the premises be highly plausible, or merely more plausible than their negations, and must the conclusion be highly plausible, or merely more plausible than its negation? Thanks.

Comments

It's a "good" question, suffering only from the very common problem that all its terms are rather vague! ... Surely you want your premises to be more plausible than their negations, but wouldn't it be rather arbitrary to define "good" by that cut-off point? I mean we could ... but what would be the purpose -- everyone already aims to produce "good" arguments, and everyone aims to make their premises as plausible as possible (often by defending them with further arguments) -- should one stop that effort once they pass the 'more plausible than their negation' level? No doubt, too, in different contexts different criteria might apply. What counts as "good" to professional philosophers may well, perhaps ought to be, different from what counts as "good" to (say) undergraduate philosophy majors, and different again from what counts as good in ordinary public discourse, or political discourse ... (In popular politics these days it's rare enough that people even make arguments at all, much less arguments where the premises are 'more plausible than negations' ....) ... Rather than try to arbitrary settle on a cut-off point (which itself would be vague -- exactly what constitutes plausibility?), why not just say: "aim to make your premises as plausible as you can" .....? That seems to me to be a useful (if vague) maxim, and all we should really care about ....

hope that's useful ...

Read another response by Andrew Pessin

Read another response about Philosophy