PHIL 252 Unit 2 — Arguments and Bullshit
Core Argument of This Unit
Reasoning is a private, messy process subject to bias and memory failure. The solution is to make reasoning public by formalizing it into arguments — a structured set of premises supporting a conclusion that others can scrutinize. At the same time, this unit expands the taxonomy of bullshit and misinformation we must be equipped to identify.
Key Ideas
Inference vs. Argument:
- Inference: A private mental process (“aha!” moment). Hard to evaluate directly because of unreliable memory, cognitive biases, and limits of self-analysis.
- Argument: An inference made public. A social exchange — explicitly constructed, rehearsed, justified, and evaluable. “An argument is a collected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.”
The goal of critical thinking is to move from private inference to public argument.
The Three Components of an Argument:
- Premises — support statements providing evidence or reasons
- Conclusion — the main claim being established
- Support Relationship — the assertion that if the premises are true, the conclusion is true (or likely)
Cogency — the standard for a good argument: A cogent argument must satisfy three conditions:
- Acceptable Premises — rationally acceptable to a reasonable audience
- Relevance — premises genuinely bear on the conclusion
- Sufficient Grounds — premises provide strong enough rational support
Dialectical Acceptability: Premises must survive a dialogue about their acceptability — they must meet reasonable counterarguments. Four types of premise almost always pass this test: (1) uncontested personal experience, (2) uncontroversial common knowledge, (3) expert consensus, (4) conclusions of previously established cogent arguments.
Expanded Bullshit Taxonomy:
| Type | Definition |
|---|---|
| Nonsense Bullshit | Meaningless language cloaked in rhetoric no one can critique |
| Persuasive Bullshit | Conveys exaggerated sense of competence or authority |
| Evasive Bullshit | Avoids directly answering a question |
| Misinformation | False claims not deliberately designed to deceive |
| Disinformation | Falsehoods spread deliberately |
| Firehose Strategy | Flooding channels with contradictory claims to confuse |
| Community Epistemology | Truth determined by group identity, not evidence |
| Black Box | Scientific claims too complex for non-experts to penetrate |
Three Questions for Any Claim:
- Who is telling me this?
- How do they know it?
- What is in it for them?
Key Terms
See Argument, Cogency, Bullshit
Foundational for Unit 7
- Argument structure (premises, conclusion, support relationship) is the scaffold for evaluating scientific arguments
- Cogency is the informal standard that inductive/scientific arguments must meet
- Dialectical acceptability — expert consensus as an always-acceptable premise type is central to how science communicates
- Community Epistemology is a barrier to scientific reasoning (tribal rejection of evidence)