More on Argument and Explanation

More on Argument and Explanation We now understand the difference between argument and explanation. An argument is a rationale designed to convince us of the truth of the conclusion by giving reasons which are evidence for the conclusion; an explanation is a rationale designed to understand a certain fact by giving reasons which are causes of that fact. But even if you have a good grasp of this distinction, there will be times when it is difficult to determine whether a particular rationale is an explanation or an argument. So here are a couple of observations that will aid you in making this determination. Normative conclusions: Recommendations and Value Judgments Many of the rationales you construct will have normative conclusions. A normative conclusion is one that expresses some kind of value judgment and an explicit or implicit recommendation. All of the following are normative conclusions. (1) Ralph Nader would make a good president. (2) The best place for the next summer Olympics is Athens. (3) There is nothing wrong with prayer in public school. (4) Americans are too concerned about making money. (5) Bummer, my stomach hurts. The following conclusions, however, are not normative, but simply descriptive. (1') Ralph Nader is not president. (2') The next summer Olympics will be in Athens. (3') Allowing prayer in public school is against the law. (4') Americans are concerned about making money. (5') My stomach hurts. It should be fairly obvious that normative statements can be the conclusions of arguments, for we often try to convince people to accept conclusions of this sort. But can they also be the conclusions of explanations? At first glance you might think so. We often say things like "Let me explain why Ralph Nader should not be president." But in our way of thinking, a person who "explains" why Ralph Nader should not be president is really trying to convince us of this. In fact, it is difficult to give any sense to the idea of explaining a value judgment, for value judgments do not express facts of the sort that can be caused. To see this, compare each normative statement in the first list above with its corresponding non-normative statement in the second list. The entries in the second list are all capable of entering into causal relations. Something might cause the Olympics to be in Athens, something might cause my stomach to hurt, but nothing really causes these outcomes to be good or bad. Having said this, it is important to understand that value terms like "good" and "bad" are often used in a way that do not really express a recommendation, but which are really more or less synonymous with statements about the world. For example, (6) Red wine is good for the heart. (7) Forest fires are bad for the environment. Statements like these may express vague recommendations, but their content is primarily empirical. The "goodness" here is identical to certain physical effects on arteries or ecosystems. So it can make just as much sense to talk about causes of (6) and (7) as evidence for them. All this boils down to the following principle of analysis: If the conclusion of a rationale is a value judgment, expressing an explicit or implicit recommendation then the rationale itself should be understood as an argument. Now, here is a tricky question: Is the following statement a value judgment? (8) Mr. Pheepher believes that Magnolia is a great movie. The answer is no. Even though what Mr. Pheepher believes is a value judgment, statement (8) is not itself a value judgment. (8) just tells us what Mr. Pheepher believes, and it makes as much sense to talk about causes of (8) as it does to talk about evidence for it. Hence, depending on the context, a rationale for which (8) is the conclusion might be either an argument or an explanation. This leads us to our next topic: conclusions that express a person's psychological states. Psychological Conclusions and Linguistic Behavior Any statement we make about the world is the sort of thing that a person can come to accept or reject. The acceptance or rejection of this statement can be expressed in another statement that actually contains the first statement. Example: (6) Red wine is good for the heart. (6') Mr. Pheepher believes that red wine is good for the heart. (6") Mr. Pheepher doubts that red wine is good for the heart. (6"') Mr. Pheepher said that red wine is good for the heart. A conclusion about what a person believes, thinks, feels, or says is not the same as a conclusion about the content of the belief itself. So even though (6') - (6"') make explicit use of (6), they are actually very different statements. (6) is a statement about red wine, (6') - (6"') are statements about what Mr. Pheepher believes and says about red wine. It is extremely important not to confuse these types of statements. All of them are the sort that may be either argued for or explained. That is, it makes as much sense to talk about arguing that red wine is good for your heart and explaining why red wine is good for your heart, as it does to talk about arguing that Mr. Pheepher believes (doubts or says ) red wine is good for your heart and explaining why Mr. Pheepehr believes (or says) red wine is good for your heart. But arguments and explanations for statements of type (6) will look very different from arguments and explanations for statements of types (6') and (6''). For consider each of the following: (8) Red wine is good for your health. Researchers have found that people who drink red wine regularly are less prone to heart attacks. (9) The reason red wine can be good for your health is that it prevents the build up of cholesterol in the arteries of the heart. (10) Mr. Pheepher must believe that red wine is good for your health. He is very a health conscious, and he drinks it with every meal. (11) Mr. Pheepher believes that red wine is good for your health because his doctor told her so. Now, how are each of these to be understood? The answers are as follows. (8) is an argument that red wine is good for your health. (9) is an explanation why red wine is good for your health. (10) is an argument that Mr. Pheepher believes that red wine is good for your health. (11) is an explanation why Mr. Pheepher believes that red wine is good for your health. It is extremely important to develop the ability to see the differences between these types of rationales. Those who can not, will often misconstrue the rationales of (10) and (11) by assuming that because (10) and (11) express Mr. Pheepher's opinions they must be arguments purporting to establish that red wine is good for your heart. As we have seen, this would be a faulty analysis for both of these statements. Reasoning About the Future We often give reasons in support of conclusions about the future. For example, (12) Tomorrow the moon will be full. (13) Mr. Pheeper is going to die someday. (14) An asteroid will wipe out life on earth in the year 2947. It is fairly obvious that conclusions such as these may be argued for; the question is whether they can also be explained. You might think not, because, like value judgments, claims about what is going to happen in the future seem to be essentially a matter of opinion. But this is really not true. Consider (12) above. It is perfectly natural to say that right now it is either a fact or not a fact that the moon will be full tomorrow. When you think about how accurately we can predict such matters it makes perfect sense for someone to accept it as a fact that on a certain date the moon will be full and then go on to ask for an explanation of this fact. There is actually no good reason to define a fact as something that has already occurred. Indeed, claims about the remote past or even what is happening presently in a remote location can be much more a matter of opinion than claims about the future. So the only way to determine whether conclusions about the future are being argued for or explained is just to pay very close attention to the context. And the truth is that sometimes it is just impossible to tell. In (13) it is reasonable to assume that a person knows that she is going to die at some point in the future. On the other hand, (14) is such a bold prediction, that one would normally expect to get an argument in support of such a claim. However, if the year were 2946 this claim might have been regarded as common knowledge for centuries so that anything given in support of it would be understood as an explanation rather than an argument.