Topics Philosophy

Question Two people might be in an argument with one another and disagree on the outcome. We might say that one person thinks the argument is sound, while another does not. That is to say, the argument depends upon some (possibly unknowable or undecidable) assumptions, and the two people disagree in their belief of whether the assumptions actually are true. Is it fair to say that any disagreement about the validity of an argument should always be reconcilable? Even if the disagreement is about the reasoning process itself, this disagreement should be reducible to axioms which both participants hold or don't hold arbitrarily. I am confused about why there is so much disagreement in philosophical circles. If arguments drew from fundamental assumptions (such as whether a being has natural rights), then it seems arguments should conclude quite reasonably with "Aha, well I see that you have an arbitrary belief in this, while I have an arbitrary belief in that". Unless the assumption of some argument is itself the subject of truth for some other argument (and some other assumptions), should not all arguments end in this way -- with understanding of both side's assumptions and an agreement on validity? I am confused why both sides should not recognize that the other is just as unknowably sound when described in terms of arbitrary assumptions. Are there philosophical arguments that don't fit this model? Is it simply that philosophical arguments are so complex that we cannot agree on whether any given argument is valid?

Accepted:
March 22, 2008

Comments

Let's go slow here. First, philosophers generally distinguish between the validity of an argument and the soundness of an argument. A valid argument is one whose inferences are of a truth preserving form. In other words, in a valid argument, if the premises are true, the conclusion will also be true, in every case, and without counter-example. A sound argument is one that is valid and also has all premises true. If one has a sound argument for one's position, it should be game over. But...

Unless arguments are already in the formal language of logic, establishing even validity can be difficult, because there are different ways of translating natural languages into formal logic. Participants in any verbal or oral debate might not share the same agreement about how such a translation should be done. And this is not even the main problem here...once you get into debates about interpretation regarding the truth of premises, especially on very abstract subjects, where all of the entailments of a given statement remain unclear, it is not surprising that so many of our arguments end up with the participants agreeing to disagree. This does not make philosophical assumptions arbitrary at all. It just makes the stakes of our debates less than logically obvious, and what is even going to count as evidence for different positions often a very open question.