Topics Philosophy

Question What arguments do contemporary philosophers use in their work? I have been told that a lot of what philosophers argue, don't actually do totally rigorous and deductive arguments. But do more of a fudge in founding their arguments. Do they use mostly inductive arguments? Inference to the best explanation? And if their arguments aren't really rigorous and deductive, why do they teach philosophy students so much formal logic?

Accepted:
July 3, 2011

Comments

Usually, when philosophers write, they try to persuade. They do it in various ways, some of which fit patterns that we've given names to. But for the most part, philosophers don't ask themselves questions about which form of argument they should use, and they don't worry much about how to classify the kinds of persuasion they engage in.

There are certain things we can expect of sensible persuasion, of course. For example, if I want to persuade you of a generalization, I'd better give you reason to believe that the generalization really does cover the range of relevant cases. If I want smart people who aren't already persuaded to take my views seriously, I'd better try to anticipate their objections. If my claim depends partly on empirical facts, I'd better give the reader reason to believe them.

Deductive argument, however, isn't quite as special as it seems. The fact that an argument is deductively valid doesn't tell us anything about the plausibility of its premises. And sometimes trying to corral ideas into an overly tidy deductive form makes them either over-simple or impenetrably baroque.

Good philosophers give you reasons to take what they say seriously; that's the important thing. On one way of understanding "argument," this amounts to giving arguments. But this tells us a lot less than it might seem to.