ARGUMENT AT ONE POINT IN THE DIALOGUE

ARGUMENT AT ONE POINT IN THE DIALOGUE

PREMISE: Everyone has a right to his or her property.

PREMISE: Smith is demanding that I return his rifle to him.

PREMISE: Smith’s rifle is his property.

CONCLUSION: I should return Smith’s rifle to him.

This argument is reasonable, so far. The generalization in the first premise is defeasible. But there is no exception to it so far – let’s say, as far as

either participant knows at this point. But then new information about the particular situation becomes known, in the form of two new facts.

NEW FACT: Smith is known to be mentally ill and to be capable of extreme acts of violence when not on his medication.

NEW FACT: Smith is not on his medication.

The right way to proceed in the face of this new evidence about the situa- tion is to retract the former conclusion in the defeasible argument accepted at the earlier point. This argument has now been defeated. But what if the proponent of the earlier argument refuses to retract and sticks with the conclusion, ‘I should return Smith’s rifle to him’? The problem with this dialogue is that although the conclusion follows from the first two premises of the original argument by defeasible reasoning, the two new facts of the case pose exactly the right kind of exception to defeat that argument. So anyone who sticks with the original conclusion, based on the support given to it by the first two premises, ignores the qualifica- tions that should be part of the generalization. Such an arguer commits the fallacy of ignoring qualifications (hasty generalization).

A serious problem with argumentation based on generalizations is that some people who are passionately committed to a viewpoint tend to overlook qualifications that are needed in a specific case. They persist in treating the generalization as absolute or universal in nature, as though no qualifications to it are necessary. Such a lack of flexibility in argumen- tation and insensitivity to a possible need for qualifying a generalization is at the root of the rigid stereotyping that is characteristic of fanatical and dogmatic arguers who are intensely committed to their convictions. Such arguers want to see everything in a black-and-white, polarized kind of way that rigidifies defeasible generalizations into universal generaliza- tions, even when such an absolutistic view of things is impractical and cannot be adequately supported by the evidence that is available. They may even see all critics or opponents of their viewpoint as evil people who can never be trusted to tell the truth. They operate on the principle, “If you aren’t for us, you are against us.” Thus they are closed to critical argumentation that asks questions that raise doubts about their views. It tends to be futile to use rational argumentation when engaging in dia- logue with such persons. They may appear to listen to your arguments and even to acknowledge them or argue against them, but they always come back to their same fixed viewpoint. Thus defeasible generalizations

5. Generalizations 21

are dangerous. But they are also necessary, if we are to deal with argu- mentation in a world of uncertainty and lack of knowledge, where we have to operate on the basis of presumptions in order to draw intelligent conclusions in argumentation about controversial matters of values and public policy, such as genetically modified foods and euthanasia.

EXERCISE 1.5

1.Classify the following as a singular statement, an existential statement, or a generalization. If it is a generalization, identify what type it is.

(a) Some Parisians who live on the Left Bank are intellectuals.

(b) Opinion polls are not reliable.

(c) John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.

(d) All creatures that have hearts have kidneys.

(e) In 1994, 78 percent of buyers of diapers bought disposable diapers.

(f) Sea lions are mammals.

(g) Sea lions live in these caves.

(h) Xerxes was a king in ancient Persia.

(i) Electrons have negative charges, unlike protons, which have posi- tive charges.

(j) Bachelors are male persons.

(k) Most apartment buildings in Fresno are made of concrete blocks.

(l) Nearly all deaths that occur in vehicles with air bags occur in cases where the occupants were not wearing seat belts.

2.State a counter-example to the following generalizations.

(a) All the astronauts on the shuttle were Americans.

(b) Radioactive fallout always follows a nuclear explosion.

3.Judge whether the fallacy of ignoring qualifications has been committed in any of the following arguments.

(a) All except students are invited. Bob is a student. Therefore Bob is not invited.

(b) Most scouts sell cookies. Wilma is a scout. Therefore Wilma sells cookies.

(c) Generally, hummingbirds are attracted to bright flowers. Here comes a hummingbird. It would be a good guess that it will approach those bright flowers in the garden.

(d) Strenuous exercise is healthy. Jim ought to engage in strenuous exer- cise because he has a heart condition that is unhealthy.

(e) Aspirin is good for people who have a heart condition. Sue has a heart condition and also stomach problems. So Sue should take aspirin.

(f) Dogs are generally friendly, and you should pat them. Here comes a little dog. It looks like a pit bull. It is growling and foaming at the mouth. You should pat it.