An argument does not exclusively refer to a disagreement, a debate or even a tortured process to determine who is correct (or, worse yet right; the hot, throbbing rhetorical id of the internet). An argument is the expression of thought and reasoning on behalf of a point of view that seeks to describe and/or explain. This distinction is important to me today because, philosophers share ideas. The business of Philosophy is to love wisdom for which dispute is not necessary. Winning 'arguments' is what sophistry teaches.
I do not see how premises can follow a conclusion. It seems to me that the conclusion should follow from the premises, which precede it.
In your syllogism
Premise1: Socrates accepts his own ignorance and believes he knows very little. (true)
Premise 2: True wisdom is accepting limitations and pursuing knowledge. (plausibly true)
Conclusion: Socrates is the wisest man in Athens.
both premises are plausible (I do not agree that the first is true), but the conclusion is a non sequitur. It does not follow from the premises. Even if the premises are true, they may be equally or more true of other men in Athens.
We are planning a logic / rhetoric class for our co-op high school students this fall in order to teach "understanding good arguments and the role they play in uncovering truth". It is very counter-cultural to learn to present reasoned arguments based on premises and conclusions. Is there a favourite curriculum that you would recommend that is well suited for high school students?
Premise 1: All men are mortal. Premise 2: Socrates is a man. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
Bad argument! The conclusion does not follow from the premises, but is presupposed by them. All the possible evidence for the first premise is equally powerful evidence for the conclusion, without any need for the intermediate generalisation. And the conclusion is actually more certain than the premises, since we can be convinced that Socrates is mortal while simultaneously believing that Elijah never died but ascended to heaven in a chariot.
An argument does not exclusively refer to a disagreement, a debate or even a tortured process to determine who is correct (or, worse yet right; the hot, throbbing rhetorical id of the internet). An argument is the expression of thought and reasoning on behalf of a point of view that seeks to describe and/or explain. This distinction is important to me today because, philosophers share ideas. The business of Philosophy is to love wisdom for which dispute is not necessary. Winning 'arguments' is what sophistry teaches.
I was a philosophy student from 1969-1972, and this was a welcome reminder of my enjoyment of the subject.
A couple of quibbles.
I do not see how premises can follow a conclusion. It seems to me that the conclusion should follow from the premises, which precede it.
In your syllogism
Premise1: Socrates accepts his own ignorance and believes he knows very little. (true)
Premise 2: True wisdom is accepting limitations and pursuing knowledge. (plausibly true)
Conclusion: Socrates is the wisest man in Athens.
both premises are plausible (I do not agree that the first is true), but the conclusion is a non sequitur. It does not follow from the premises. Even if the premises are true, they may be equally or more true of other men in Athens.
We are planning a logic / rhetoric class for our co-op high school students this fall in order to teach "understanding good arguments and the role they play in uncovering truth". It is very counter-cultural to learn to present reasoned arguments based on premises and conclusions. Is there a favourite curriculum that you would recommend that is well suited for high school students?
Premise 1: All men are mortal. Premise 2: Socrates is a man. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
Bad argument! The conclusion does not follow from the premises, but is presupposed by them. All the possible evidence for the first premise is equally powerful evidence for the conclusion, without any need for the intermediate generalisation. And the conclusion is actually more certain than the premises, since we can be convinced that Socrates is mortal while simultaneously believing that Elijah never died but ascended to heaven in a chariot.