{"id":9713,"date":"2012-05-11T12:29:08","date_gmt":"2012-05-11T12:29:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/05\/11\/more-on-asserting-and-arguing\/"},"modified":"2012-05-11T12:29:08","modified_gmt":"2012-05-11T12:29:08","slug":"more-on-asserting-and-arguing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/05\/11\/more-on-asserting-and-arguing\/","title":{"rendered":"More on Asserting and Arguing"},"content":{"rendered":"

James Anderson<\/a> comments astutely via e-mail:<\/span><\/p>\n

I have a worry about your post Asserting and Arguing<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

You seem to affirm all of the following:<\/span><\/p>\n

(1) An assertion is a mere assertion unless argued.<\/span>
(2) Mere assertions are gratuitous.<\/span>
(3) The premises of arguments are assertions.<\/span>
(4) One cannot argue for every premise of every argument.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is an accurate summary except for (3).  I did not say that the premises of arguments are assertions since I allow that the premises of an argument may be unasserted propositions.  The constituent propositions of arguments considered in abstracto<\/em>, as they are considered in formal logic, as opposed to arguments used in concrete dialectical situations to convince oneself or someone else of something, are typically unasserted.<\/span><\/p>\n

Since the conclusion of an argument cannot be any stronger (or less gratuitous) than its premises, doesn't it follow from these claims that the conclusion of every argument is gratuitous?<\/span><\/p>\n

Well, if the conclusion follows from the premises, then it has the support of those premises, and is insofar forth less gratuitous than they are.  Your point is better put by saying that, if the premises are gratuitious, then the conclusion canot be ultimately non-gratuitous, but only proximately non-gratuitous.<\/span><\/p>\n

You distinguish between 'making' arguments and 'entertaining' arguments, but that doesn't offer a way out here because the kind of argument required in (1) and (3) is a 'made' argument rather than an <\/span>'entertained' argument.<\/span><\/p>\n

Isn't the answer here to reject (1) and to grant that some assertions (e.g., the assertion that your cats are on the desk) can be neither mere assertions nor argued assertions?  We need a category like <\/span>'justified' assertions:  no justified assertion is a mere assertion and not every justified assertion is an argued assertion.<\/span><\/p>\n

Professor Anderson has put his finger on a real problem with the post, and I accept his criticism.  I began the post with the sentence, "Mere assertions remain gratuitous until supported by arguments."  But that is not quite right.  I should have written:  "Mere assertions remain gratuitous until supported, either by argument, or in some other way."  Thus my assertion that two black cats are lounging on my writing table  is not a mere assertion although it is and must be unargued; it is an assertion justified by sense perception.<\/span><\/p>\n

Expressed more clearly, the main point of the post was that ultimate justification via argument alone<\/em> cannot be had.  Sooner or late one must have recourse to propositions unsupportable by argument.  Argument does not free us of the need to make assertions.  (I am assuming that there is no such thing as infinitely regressive support or circular support.  Not perfectly obvious, I grant: but very plausible.)<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

James Anderson comments astutely via e-mail: I have a worry about your post Asserting and Arguing. You seem to affirm all of the following: (1) An assertion is a mere assertion unless argued.(2) Mere assertions are gratuitous.(3) The premises of arguments are assertions.(4) One cannot argue for every premise of every argument. This is an … Continue reading “More on Asserting and Arguing”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[108,128],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9713","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-logica-docens","category-reason-and-rationality"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9713","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9713"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9713\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9713"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9713"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9713"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}