because of the testimony of the senses of others and authorities, and that the Sun revolves around the Earth is false because of indirect sensory evidence as well as the well‐established heliocentric theory. Some claims are difficult, or impossible, to show true or false with evidence. Claims like “God exists,” “Abortion is always immoral,” and “I have an immortal soul” would fall into this ambiguous category. That is probably why ideas, issues, and arguments surrounding these claims are considered to be “philosophical.”
As rational, adult critical thinkers, we have beliefs or opinions that we think are true about reality as we perceive it, and we express those beliefs or opinions in written or spoken claims. But we can't stop there. We must convince or persuade others as to why we hold these beliefs, and when we do so, we must give a reason or set of reasons (the premises of our argument) for why we hold to a particular belief (the conclusion of our argument). So, for example, in “The Passion of the Jew” Kyle believes strongly that the Jewish community in his hometown should apologize for Jesus's death. If asked why the Jewish community in his hometown, or anyone, should be convinced or persuaded to apologize, Kyle's argument might look like the following:
Premise 1: Since Jews are known to have been partly responsible for the death of Jesus
Premise 2: And, since an action like this requires that one should apologize
Premise 3: And, since the Jews in South Park are part of the Jewish community
Conclusion: Therefore, the Jews in South Park should apologize for Jesus' death
Let's note a few things about this argument. First, it has been placed into standard form. Putting an argument in standard form means placing the premises of the argument first, the conclusion last, and clearly dividing the premise(s) and conclusion with a horizontal line. This is a handy tool because it helps make the logical form and parts of the argument clear. And, as we will see later, standard form makes the argument easier to analyze in terms of whether the conclusion follows from the premises as well as whether all the premises are true.
Notice the word since at the beginning of the premises and the word therefore at the beginning of the conclusion. The word since is an example of a premise‐indicating word, along with words like because, for, for the reason that, and as, among others. The word therefore is an example of a conclusion‐indicating word, along with words like hence, so, thus, this shows us that, we can conclude that, and we can reason/deduce/infer that, among others. Premise‐indicating and conclusion‐indicating words are important because they usually let us know that premises and a conclusion are coming in an argument. At times, it can be incredibly difficult to tell if someone is putting forward an argument, so you can look for these indicating words to see if there is an argument in front of you and, further, you can identify what the conclusion and the premise(s) of the argument are. Unfortunately, these indicating words are not always present, and people sometimes place the conclusion anywhere in their argument (sometimes it will be the first claim, sometimes the second, sometimes the last). In such cases you must supply these words to make the structure and parts of the argument apparent.
Deductions and Inductions
Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of arguments, deductive arguments and inductive arguments. In deductive arguments, the speaker intends the conclusion to follow from the premises with absolute certainty such that, if all of the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true without any doubt whatsoever. To say that a conclusion follows from a premise means that we are justified in having reasoned appropriately from one claim (the premise) to another claim (the conclusion). Cartman puts forward a deductive argument in “The Tooth Fairy Tats 2000” episode that goes something like this:
Premise 1: If the boys combine their lost teeth, then they'll get money from the Tooth Fairy
Premise 2: If they get money from the Tooth Fairy, then they can buy a Sega Dreamcast
Conclusion: Hence, if the boys combine their lost teeth, then they can buy a Sega Dreamcast
We can see that, provided that the two premises are true, the conclusion absolutely must be true. We can also see that there is no other conclusion that could correctly be drawn from these premises. In fact, from looking at the premises alone you know the conclusion before even seeing it. The previous argument about Jews apologizing for Jesus's death is also a deductive argument. Just like with the Tooth Fairy argument, if all the premises are true then the conclusion must be true, there is no other conclusion that possibly could be drawn from the premises, and you know exactly what the conclusion is without even seeing it.
In inductive arguments, the speaker intends the conclusion to follow from the premises with a degree of probability or likelihood such that, if all of the premises are true, then the conclusion probably or likely is true, but it is still possible that the conclusion is false. In the “Towelie” episode, the boys notice that when they speak about anything having to do with towels, Towelie shows up, and so they reason like this:
Premise 1: Because in the past, when we mentioned towel‐related things, Towelie showed up
Premise 2: And because we will mention something towel‐related now
Conclusion: We can conclude that Towelie will show up
We can see that, provided the premises are true, the conclusion is probably or likely true, but not definitely true. It makes sense to conclude that Towelie will show up, given past experience. But the truth of Towelie showing up in the past does not guarantee that, with absolute certainty or without a doubt, Towelie will show up. It is still possible that Towelie will not show up, so the conclusion is merely probable or likely. In the episode, Towelie does show up, but he need not necessarily have shown up.
Consider Stan's reasoning at the end of the episode “Scott Tenorman Must Die” after it has been revealed that Cartman orchestrated the death of Scott's parents, the subsequent addition of their bodies to the chili, and Radiohead's witnessing the entire event so as to make fun of Scott for being a woosie.
Premise 1: Since Cartman does horrible things to people for minor offenses (like being cheated out of $16.12)
Premise 2: And since we (the boys) commit, at least, minor offenses against Cartman frequently, and he may retaliate like he did with Scott
Conclusion: Therefore, we had better not piss Cartman off in the future, for fear of retaliation
Again, even if both of the premises are true, it does not follow with absolute certainty that the boys had better not piss off Cartman in the future. In fact, as it turns out, the boys piss off Cartman numerous times without receiving the kind of retaliation given poor Scott Tenorman. So, the conclusion is false.
The Good, the Bad, and … Well, That's it Really
Our goal is not just to form arguments. We need to form good arguments, and we need to evaluate the arguments of others. There are good arguments and there are bad arguments in both the deductive and inductive realms. A good argument, in either realm, is one in which the conclusion logically follows from the premises and all of the premises are true. If either one of these conditions is absent, then the argument is bad and should be rejected.
In the deductive realm, that a conclusion follows from premises means that the argument is valid (or invalid if the conclusion does not follow). When an
