Evaluating Your Argument
Imagining Possible Objections, Preparing Responses & Engaging in Critical Dialogue
This page contains parts 6 - 8 of the 10 part PEE Writing Assignment
OVERVIEW
Part 1 Imagine 2 possible objections to your argument, definitions, and / rationales.
Part 2 Prepare responses to each objection to strengthen your argument.
Notes About Objections / Critiques & Responses
Objections
Here we are imagining how someone might criticize one or more parts of an argument, such that the validity, reasonableness, or soundness of the argument is threatened.
🤔 Who's Objecting?
Objections can be from the perspective of:
(i) someone who disagrees with your position (i.e., your conclusion), or
(ii) someone who agrees with your position, but disagrees with the way you go about arguing for it (i.e., your premises or underlying assumptions).
Responses
Directly address the concern(s) raised in the objection(s), rather than merely rephrasing one's original line of reasoning or misdirecting with a red herring / smokescreen.
🤓 Work SMARTER... Not Harder
For many philosophical arguments, responses and critiques have already been made in the literature. You are more than welcome to research and use an existing work as long as you:
(i) summarize and explain it in your own words, and
(ii) give appropriate credit to the source of the response with internal citation & inclusion in works cited.
🧐 Assessing the Strength of Objections
If an objection is entirely faulty, and your original argument is in fact sufficient, explain why by explaining the flawed reasoning / misunderstanding. Sometimes, though, objections are accurate. If this is the case, an intellectually humble and epistemically virtuous agent will respond by accepting the objection and revising their rationale (providing another method of support and justification) or by replacing their original support with better reasoning, or more reliable or sufficient empirical evidence.
⚠️ BEWARE: Reasoning Errors
Even a great argument can come undone when one's reasoning is unsatisfactory.
Although we are entertaining views that differ from our own, it would be fallacious to:
(i) disregard them without adequate consideration of their position (e.g., an ad hominem attack which attacks the source of a view rather than the claims being made; and is often used as a red herring to distract from actually having to respond / defend their original argument).
(ii) to present anything but the strongest version of each objection (e.g., the straw person fallacy which presents a weak or irrational version of a critique that makes it easier to respond to).
🧠 Cultivate Epistemic Virtues
Intellectual humility is cultivated not only by confronting possible objections, but also in (re)considering one's position in light of any viable points made.
This does not, by any means, imply that you have to agree with the opposing view. Rather, we analyze the arguments themselves; say why we do not accept a particular premise or conclusion, and thus, why our own argument(s) should be accepted by giving further reasons / evidence.
STEP 1 Consider whether any concessions can be made to gain objector's favor. Any part(s) of an objection can be allowed if they are, by themselves—outside of the context of the critique—not threatening to the overall argument. Even if you don't agree with such concessions, they can still be allowed if their truth does not threaten the truth of your conclusion.
STEP 2 Refute any remaining aspects of the objection. If possible, demonstrate how the objection(s) are mistaken / flawed / inconsistent with what has been established.
🤨 Practice Charity
Intellectual development, when done well, requires us to consider beliefs and arguments other than our own and to defend our own beliefs and arguments with reasons. Successful arguments practice intellectual humility and responsibility by seeking out and taking objections seriously.
Charity in one’s thinking and writing refers to a reading of the material that does not assume that the author or subjects one may be arguing against are irrational in their thought process or argumentation.
🧐 Consider, Explain, & Address...
1. How each critique threatens some part(s) of one's argument (i.e., the premises / rationales),
2. How each critique undermines one's ability to argue for one's position (i.e., the conclusion),
3. Which specific part(s) of the argument are being challenged,
4. What might motivate someone to make each critique in the first place (i.e., perhaps they are operating from different base assumptions or ideological commitments).
PART 1 Objecting to Premises
Objecting to the Soundness of an Argument
Denying that an argument is sound by showing that one or more of the premises are false through counterexample. Not a direct critique of a conclusion. Rather, arguing that even if an argument is valid, it is not sound since the conclusion rests on one or more untrue premises.
Other possible objections to premises include identifying underlying, implicit, or unstated assumption(s) / premise(s) which, when made explicit, would be problematic in some specific way.
Objecting to the Support of an Argument
Arguing that one of the rationale(s) fail(s) to sufficiently justify the premise(s) or conclusion, or demonstrating: (i) why one may doubt that it is, or ever could be, justified; or (ii) how it rests upon at least one specific fallacy. Not a direct critique of the premises / conclusion. Rather, arguing that the rationale(s) used to explain one or more premises / the conclusion do not give us good enough reason to accept them..
Tips for Objecting to Premises
🙅🏽♀️ Factual Premises
Present & cite empirical support which shows that the claim made by the argument being critiqued is false or mistaken.
🙅🏽♀️ Moral Premises
Present a thought experiment [or analogous real-life scenario] which shows that our moral intuitions differ from those assumed / asserted by the argument being critiqued.
🙅🏾♀️ Conditionals
It could be argued that the antecedent does not entail the consequent, or that the consequent does not depend upon the antecedent.
🙅🏾♀️ Assertions
Use and cite specific examples or materials from the course content or from your research to counter the support given (or address the lack thereof).
🙅🏾♀️ Disjunctives
It could be argued that the disjunct omits some third option or multiple additional options and so commits the fallacy of presenting a false dilemma.
🙅🏾♀️ Significance
Use disanalogy to argue that the example in the story of significance is actually too dissimilar to the topic to demonstrate [or there is some issue with] its relevance.
PART 2 How to Respond to...
Soundness Objections
Defend the soundness of the premise(s) by showing that those argued to be false are actually true. Address the accusation of falsehood by providing additional / contrary support (theoretical / empirical), or by demonstrating any faulty reasoning / assumptions at play in the objection.
Support Objections
Defend / revise rationale(s) to address claims they are insufficient to justify the acceptance of the premise(s) or conclusion.
PART 1 Objecting to Conclusions
Objecting to the Implications of an Argument
[reductio ad absurdum]
Arguing that a conclusion ought to be rejected by showing that it implies something wholly unacceptable [i.e., absurd]. Not a direct critique of the conclusion. Rather, Arguing that if it were true / accepted, we would then have to accept some ridiculous / false implication of that conclusion.
Objecting to the Validity of an Argument
Arguing that the conclusion does not follow from the premises / the premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion by way of logical analysis / counterexample.
Tips for Constructing Reductio ad Absurdum [RAA]
STEP 1 Assume the OPPOSITE of what one intends to show. In the case of imaging possible objections to your own argument, you should assume your conclusion.
STEP 2 Show that the acceptance of that assumption leads to some other UNACCEPTABLE claim. I.e., show how your conclusion could lead to something absurd / unacceptable.
STEP 3 Since the implication of the assumption is false, we should REJECT the assumption. In this case, the opposite of your conclusion (or at least that your conclusion should be rejected).
Form
P1. Assume P.
P2. If P, then Q.
.... [no limit on premises]
Pn. Not Q. [ABSURDITY]
C. ∴ Not P. (RAA)
Example
P1. Assume ghosts exist. [OPPOSITE OF C.]
P2. If ghosts exist, then they violate the laws of physics.
P3. If ghosts violate the laws of physics, then much [if not all] of what science has taught us is false.
P4. Surely much [if not all] of what science has taught us is NOT false (i.e., that would be absurd).
C. Therefore, ghosts must NOT exist [OPPOSITE OF P1.]
PART 2 How to Respond to...
Reductio Objections
Defend your conclusion against the argument that it leads to something absurd. Find some potential flaw or error in the RAA against the argument which you then explain to unravel the validity / soundness of the objection itself. Use support when critiquing specific part(s) of the RAA.
Validity Objections
Make sure your argument is valid! Need Help? If you are making an inductive argument, make it as strong as possible.
Part 1 Hold an hour long dialogue with someone who disagrees with [some part of] your argument.
After imagining possible objections and preparing responses, one is in the best position to intentionally engage in consensual dialogue with someone who disagrees with them.
Part 2 Write a Report Summarizing your dialogue & strategy for moving the conversation towards agreement.
The following comes from an assignment, but it is worth saying that dialogues can occur in a myriad of forms and modalities.
🗪 Critical Dialogue
🙅🏽♀️ How?
STEP 1 Find someone in your life who disagrees with at least some part of your project.
STEP 2 Conduct a (min.) 1 hour dialogue moving from disagreement to some agreement
🤐 Why?
Now more than ever, I fear that the most necessary skill we need to cultivate is the ability to converse with those who disagree with us in a productive and respectful manner (as we are best served reserving our judgment for propositions, not those who hold them to be true/false). I hope you take as many opportunities as you can in your life to have such dialogues about those topics which you deem worth dedicating your time and energy to understanding.
💪 Gain Confidence & Clarity
CONFIDENCE: The positive and motivating feeling of entering into a conversation (which you know ahead of time will include disagreement) having done your research on the topic and feeling capable of addressing potential objections.
CLARITY: The ability to take and adapt technical and discipline-specific language and concepts in order to explain them more clearly to lay persons.
😮💨 Cultivate Humility & Tact
HUMILITY: The willingness to listen to differing view points and taking them seriously enough to warrant consideration and response.
TACT: The strategy of listening to the points of view of others, as well as explaining your own; and the understanding that any attempt to persuade others is a combination of both what we say, as well as how we choose to say it.
👂 Be an Active Listener
This should occur "face-to-face" [virtually is fine, but with video and audio] and all in one sitting (e.g., two separate 30 minute conversations would not suffice).
Repeat your conversational partner’s view back to them, making them feel heard (e.g., “Let me make sure I’m understanding you right. Is your view that…?”)
🤬 Keep Things Running Smoothly
You may consider providing a draft of your writing assignment thus far [or analogous pertinent information to help establish a shared starting point / framework for the dialogue] to your conversational partner before your dialogue so that they have a chance to familiarize themselves with your topic. This would also give you an easy jumping off point at the beginning of the dialogue, where you can see if they have any questions or if anything was unclear.
A SAMPLING OF WAYS TO CONTRIBUTE TO A PHILOSOPHICAL CONVERSATION
Which Objection Should [Not] Be Included in the Final Draft?
🙅🏾♀️ Not Too Easy
You don’t want to pick a softball objection, since addressing these won’t bolster your case and probably won’t address any concerns a shrewd reader may be having.
🙅🏾♀️ Not Too Challenging
Some objections may have been too challenging, such that you do not feel very confident in your ability to respond without making serious concessions in your argument; in which case, it would leave your paper on a weak note to include these.
🙅🏾♀️ Not Resolved
After revising drafts, you may have already resolved some of the objections you imagined / encountered; it would not make sense to include them anymore
👍🏾 JUST RIGHT
Select an objection(s) that balances relevance & difficulty, but that you feel you can be adequately overcome.