what criteria do you use to determine a fact
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
- Status
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Tell us your criteria since you claim to be the Goddess of facts. What constitutes a fact to YOU? Show us all the way
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
if you don't believe it, its more likely to be a fact.....
evince
Truthmatters
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~digger/305/criteria.htm
Criteria for Analyzing Arguments
You make judgments all the time about which arguments are good, bad, persuasive, unpersuasive, etc. In the
course of listening to and judging arguments, you have probably internalized a set of rough criteria for evaluating them.
We can externalize and reflect on these criteria, so as to be able to better analyze, interpret, and compose strong
arguments.
Claim: At the most general level, the claim is reasonable – buttressed with sufficient evidence, grounds, warrants, etc. Claim follows from (is closely tied to) evidence, grounds and warrants.
The general type of claim – substantiation, evaluation, recommendation/public policy – contains the appropriate kinds of support. Fulkerson argues that the different kinds of claim impose different standards and demands when it comes to evidence, or for establishing a prima facie case. Substantiation involves questions of definition & fact
In practice, these different types of claim are often hard to disentangle.
E.g.: affirmative action. Questions of definition and fact. What is affirmative action; what does it seek to address; what kind of problem is racism, and to what extent does affirmative action help lessen its effects.
Questions of evaluation: under what condition is it justified?
Questions of recommendation: what should be done? Should affirmative action be abolished, reformed, extended, etc.
Evidence/Support for Claim:
Evidence is strong – contains sufficient amounts of evidence from statistical, textual, authority, or experiential realms to support claim. In each case, there are criteria that determine whether the evidence is strong. E.g. authority is reliable and relevant; the experience is reasonably typical and relevant. The statistics are reliable, applicable, relevant, well researched. In general, the evidence is detailed enough, up to date, and verifiable (this includes using proper citation). The evidence is strong in terms of its relevance, sufficiency, scope, consistency, quality and 'fit' with the claim. In the Toulmin model, evidence comes into play in 2 places: as data/evidence that supports a claim with the aid of a warrant; or which functions as 'backing', and directly supports the sufficiency of the warrant.
Warrants/General Strategies of Argument
Warrants are chains of reasoning that connect the grounds to the claim. These exist at various different levels of
generality within an argument, and rarely come in neat packages - typically they are interconnected and work in
combination. There are 6 main argumentative strategies via which the relationship between evidence and
claim are often established.
1. Argument based on Generalization
A very common form of reasoning. It assumes that what is true of a well chosen sample is likely to hold for a
larger group or population, or that certain things consistent with the sample can be inferred of the group/population.
To evaluate this we need to determine the scope of the generalization (some, many, the majority, most, all, etc.).
The scope of the argument will determine the degree to which a sufficient amount of typical, accurate,
relevant support is required (although the extent to which a generalization is accepted by your audience is
also crucial here). We also need to consider the nature, uniformity and stability of the group, category
or population being generalized about. For example a key question in the O.J. Simpson trial concerned
which population ought to be used when generalizing about the likelihood of a wife-beater going on to murder his spouse.
2. Argument based on Analogy
Extrapolating from one situation or event based on the nature and outcome of a similar situation or event.
Has links to 'case-based' and precedent-based reasoning used in legal discourse. What is important here is the
extent to which relevant similarities can be established between 2 contexts. Are there sufficient, typical,
accurate, relevant similarities? Example: gun ownership went up in Florida and crime went down at the same
time. Therefore other states ought to make guns more available.
3. Argument via Sign/Clue
Taking evidence of something visible as symptomatic of something not visible. Smoke as a sign for fire. For
example some people think high SAT scores are a sign a person is smart and will do well in college. We
evaluate it via the STAR criteria. That is, for a sign to be reliable, we need a sufficient number of typical,
accurate and relevant instances.
4. Causal Argument
Arguing that a given occurrence or event is the result of, or is effected by, factor X. Causal reasoning is the
most complex of the different forms. The big dangers with it are:
A) Mixing up correlation with causation
B) falling into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc trap. Closely related to confusing correlation and causation,
this involves inferring 'after the fact, therefore because of the fact').
C) We can evaluate it via the STAR criteria. That is, for an argument about cause to be reliable, we need
a sufficient number of typical, accurate and relevant instances. Also important are questions concerning degree
of correlation; the question of controls; elimination of other factors; the extent to which causes are partial,
necessary or sufficient.
D) Confusing necessary, sufficient, and contributing causes
5. Argument from Authority
Does person X or text X constitute an authoritative source on the issue in question? What political, ideological
or economic interests does the authority have? Is this the sort of issue in which a significant number of authorities
are likely to agree on?
Using STAR: can we find a sufficient number of authoritative sources, accurately cited with relevant knowledge
which agree, and whose arguments are persuasive?
To what degree does an authority exhibit logos, pathos and ethos (or good sense, good character and good will)?
6. Argument from Principle
Locating a principle that is widely regarded as valid and showing that a situation exists in which this principle
applies. Evaluation: Is the principle widely accepted? Does is accurately apply to the situation in question?
Are there commonly agreed on exceptions? Are there 'rival' principles that lead to a different claim? Are
the practical consequences of following the principle sufficiently desirable?
GENERAL CRITERIA
1. STAR: sufficiency, typicality, accuracy, and relevance.
2. The nature of the basic categories and definitions constructed or applied in the argument.
3. The degree of consistency and coherence within the chain of reasoning.
4. The extent to which non-contradiction and ‘fallacious’ reasoning is avoided.
5. The extent to which counter-examples and counter-arguments are dealt with.
6. How credible are the assumptions on which an argument is founded? What kind of
implications follow from an argument?
7. “Nuance”: how qualifications and objections are managed.
8. How well does the argument understand the audience and context of debate?
9. Are there significant gaps, silences or absences in an argument?
10. The Avoidance of forms of reasoning that approximate fallacies.
Discussion of ‘fallacies’ is not useful as a laundry list of forms to avoid, or as an algorithm for finding weaknesses in authors’
arguments, but as a way of reflecting on the nature of chains of reasoning, for talking about the strengths and weaknesses of argumentative claims and the evidence, support, backing, assumptions etc. associated with them.
Fallacies Related to GASCAP warrants:
1. Hasty Generalization
2. False Analogy
3. Fallible Sign
4. Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc (after the fact, therefore because of the fact)
5. False authority
6. Fallacy of Accident – general principle misapplied, rebuttal conditions not noticed.
Other Fallacies
1. Straw Man
2. Slippery Slope
3. Begging the Question
4. False Dilemma/Dichotomy
5. Genetic Fallacy
6. Shifting the burden of proof
7. Argument ad Ignoratium (argument from ignorance)
8. Red Herring
9. Argument Ad Misericordium
10. Ad Hominem
Abusive – directed at speaker
Circumstantial – directed at some group. Similar to ‘Poisoning the Well’
Tu quoquo (‘thou too’)
Criteria for Analyzing Arguments
You make judgments all the time about which arguments are good, bad, persuasive, unpersuasive, etc. In the
course of listening to and judging arguments, you have probably internalized a set of rough criteria for evaluating them.
We can externalize and reflect on these criteria, so as to be able to better analyze, interpret, and compose strong
arguments.
Claim: At the most general level, the claim is reasonable – buttressed with sufficient evidence, grounds, warrants, etc. Claim follows from (is closely tied to) evidence, grounds and warrants.
The general type of claim – substantiation, evaluation, recommendation/public policy – contains the appropriate kinds of support. Fulkerson argues that the different kinds of claim impose different standards and demands when it comes to evidence, or for establishing a prima facie case. Substantiation involves questions of definition & fact
In practice, these different types of claim are often hard to disentangle.
E.g.: affirmative action. Questions of definition and fact. What is affirmative action; what does it seek to address; what kind of problem is racism, and to what extent does affirmative action help lessen its effects.
Questions of evaluation: under what condition is it justified?
Questions of recommendation: what should be done? Should affirmative action be abolished, reformed, extended, etc.
Evidence/Support for Claim:
Evidence is strong – contains sufficient amounts of evidence from statistical, textual, authority, or experiential realms to support claim. In each case, there are criteria that determine whether the evidence is strong. E.g. authority is reliable and relevant; the experience is reasonably typical and relevant. The statistics are reliable, applicable, relevant, well researched. In general, the evidence is detailed enough, up to date, and verifiable (this includes using proper citation). The evidence is strong in terms of its relevance, sufficiency, scope, consistency, quality and 'fit' with the claim. In the Toulmin model, evidence comes into play in 2 places: as data/evidence that supports a claim with the aid of a warrant; or which functions as 'backing', and directly supports the sufficiency of the warrant.
Warrants/General Strategies of Argument
Warrants are chains of reasoning that connect the grounds to the claim. These exist at various different levels of
generality within an argument, and rarely come in neat packages - typically they are interconnected and work in
combination. There are 6 main argumentative strategies via which the relationship between evidence and
claim are often established.
1. Argument based on Generalization
A very common form of reasoning. It assumes that what is true of a well chosen sample is likely to hold for a
larger group or population, or that certain things consistent with the sample can be inferred of the group/population.
To evaluate this we need to determine the scope of the generalization (some, many, the majority, most, all, etc.).
The scope of the argument will determine the degree to which a sufficient amount of typical, accurate,
relevant support is required (although the extent to which a generalization is accepted by your audience is
also crucial here). We also need to consider the nature, uniformity and stability of the group, category
or population being generalized about. For example a key question in the O.J. Simpson trial concerned
which population ought to be used when generalizing about the likelihood of a wife-beater going on to murder his spouse.
2. Argument based on Analogy
Extrapolating from one situation or event based on the nature and outcome of a similar situation or event.
Has links to 'case-based' and precedent-based reasoning used in legal discourse. What is important here is the
extent to which relevant similarities can be established between 2 contexts. Are there sufficient, typical,
accurate, relevant similarities? Example: gun ownership went up in Florida and crime went down at the same
time. Therefore other states ought to make guns more available.
3. Argument via Sign/Clue
Taking evidence of something visible as symptomatic of something not visible. Smoke as a sign for fire. For
example some people think high SAT scores are a sign a person is smart and will do well in college. We
evaluate it via the STAR criteria. That is, for a sign to be reliable, we need a sufficient number of typical,
accurate and relevant instances.
4. Causal Argument
Arguing that a given occurrence or event is the result of, or is effected by, factor X. Causal reasoning is the
most complex of the different forms. The big dangers with it are:
A) Mixing up correlation with causation
B) falling into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc trap. Closely related to confusing correlation and causation,
this involves inferring 'after the fact, therefore because of the fact').
C) We can evaluate it via the STAR criteria. That is, for an argument about cause to be reliable, we need
a sufficient number of typical, accurate and relevant instances. Also important are questions concerning degree
of correlation; the question of controls; elimination of other factors; the extent to which causes are partial,
necessary or sufficient.
D) Confusing necessary, sufficient, and contributing causes
5. Argument from Authority
Does person X or text X constitute an authoritative source on the issue in question? What political, ideological
or economic interests does the authority have? Is this the sort of issue in which a significant number of authorities
are likely to agree on?
Using STAR: can we find a sufficient number of authoritative sources, accurately cited with relevant knowledge
which agree, and whose arguments are persuasive?
To what degree does an authority exhibit logos, pathos and ethos (or good sense, good character and good will)?
6. Argument from Principle
Locating a principle that is widely regarded as valid and showing that a situation exists in which this principle
applies. Evaluation: Is the principle widely accepted? Does is accurately apply to the situation in question?
Are there commonly agreed on exceptions? Are there 'rival' principles that lead to a different claim? Are
the practical consequences of following the principle sufficiently desirable?
GENERAL CRITERIA
1. STAR: sufficiency, typicality, accuracy, and relevance.
2. The nature of the basic categories and definitions constructed or applied in the argument.
3. The degree of consistency and coherence within the chain of reasoning.
4. The extent to which non-contradiction and ‘fallacious’ reasoning is avoided.
5. The extent to which counter-examples and counter-arguments are dealt with.
6. How credible are the assumptions on which an argument is founded? What kind of
implications follow from an argument?
7. “Nuance”: how qualifications and objections are managed.
8. How well does the argument understand the audience and context of debate?
9. Are there significant gaps, silences or absences in an argument?
10. The Avoidance of forms of reasoning that approximate fallacies.
Discussion of ‘fallacies’ is not useful as a laundry list of forms to avoid, or as an algorithm for finding weaknesses in authors’
arguments, but as a way of reflecting on the nature of chains of reasoning, for talking about the strengths and weaknesses of argumentative claims and the evidence, support, backing, assumptions etc. associated with them.
Fallacies Related to GASCAP warrants:
1. Hasty Generalization
2. False Analogy
3. Fallible Sign
4. Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc (after the fact, therefore because of the fact)
5. False authority
6. Fallacy of Accident – general principle misapplied, rebuttal conditions not noticed.
Other Fallacies
1. Straw Man
2. Slippery Slope
3. Begging the Question
4. False Dilemma/Dichotomy
5. Genetic Fallacy
6. Shifting the burden of proof
7. Argument ad Ignoratium (argument from ignorance)
8. Red Herring
9. Argument Ad Misericordium
10. Ad Hominem
Abusive – directed at speaker
Circumstantial – directed at some group. Similar to ‘Poisoning the Well’
Tu quoquo (‘thou too’)
evince
Truthmatters
Evidence/Support for Claim:
Evidence is strong – contains sufficient amounts of evidence from statistical, textual, authority, or experiential realms to support claim. In each case, there are criteria that determine whether the evidence is strong. E.g. authority is reliable and relevant; the experience is reasonably typical and relevant. The statistics are reliable, applicable, relevant, well researched. In general, the evidence is detailed enough, up to date, and verifiable (this includes using proper citation). The evidence is strong in terms of its relevance, sufficiency, scope, consistency, quality and 'fit' with the claim. In the Toulmin model, evidence comes into play in 2 places: as data/evidence that supports a claim with the aid of a warrant; or which functions as 'backing', and directly supports the sufficiency of the warrant.
do you agree with this part?
Evidence is strong – contains sufficient amounts of evidence from statistical, textual, authority, or experiential realms to support claim. In each case, there are criteria that determine whether the evidence is strong. E.g. authority is reliable and relevant; the experience is reasonably typical and relevant. The statistics are reliable, applicable, relevant, well researched. In general, the evidence is detailed enough, up to date, and verifiable (this includes using proper citation). The evidence is strong in terms of its relevance, sufficiency, scope, consistency, quality and 'fit' with the claim. In the Toulmin model, evidence comes into play in 2 places: as data/evidence that supports a claim with the aid of a warrant; or which functions as 'backing', and directly supports the sufficiency of the warrant.
do you agree with this part?
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
All you do is find links on google, post them & claim they're "facts." They can be totally irrelevant to the discussion, and unsubstantiated.
You always claim to be about the "facts," that that thread on the Iraq Resolution really showed how little you understand them.
You always claim to be about the "facts," that that thread on the Iraq Resolution really showed how little you understand them.
evince
Truthmatters
SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.
is this fact?
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.
is this fact?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
What my party leaders tell me to think.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I didn't know the Communist Party expected their followers to think........
Facts are just facts.
Your problems are, among others and in no particular order:
- you refer to opinion as though it was fact
- you cite a fact that does not pertain to the subject
- you cite a fact that does not mean what you think it means
- you cite a fact without context or any other interpretation
Facts are not the issue and the sooner you grasp the real problem the sooner you can stop looking so stupid.
Of course if you do solve this you will soon discover how false your liberal claptrap really is.
The easier path for you is to walk away from facts and just stick with emo meltdowns.
Your problems are, among others and in no particular order:
- you refer to opinion as though it was fact
- you cite a fact that does not pertain to the subject
- you cite a fact that does not mean what you think it means
- you cite a fact without context or any other interpretation
Facts are not the issue and the sooner you grasp the real problem the sooner you can stop looking so stupid.
Of course if you do solve this you will soon discover how false your liberal claptrap really is.
The easier path for you is to walk away from facts and just stick with emo meltdowns.
Is what a fact ?
Did the SEC do something ? That's a fact.
Did it occur 19 September 07 ? That's a fact.
Is a paragraph a fact ? No.
evince
Truthmatters
nothing but fucking insults huh assholes?
thank you for PROVING you assholes have no idea what constitutes a fact
bad information in means bad decisions out
this is why your party is being consumed by a TV reality star
- Status