The discussion in chapter three, section D in Epstein, ultimately illustrates the ideas and differences between strong and valid arguments.
When coming up with a good argument, there are usually better ways with going on about it. According to Epstein, knowing whether what is being spoken about (the premises) is true, whether we personally know if what is being spoken about is true, and whether the opinions or perceptions of the person speaking about believes his or her argument is correct, strong, or valid is partially unrelated and should not be depended on when determining the sole argument's validity or strength. Instead, a good argument should follow from beginning (premises) to end (conclusion). Also, premises should, more often than not, be better and plausible than its conclusion.
At times, it is certain that having an argument that is strong is better than having an argument that is valid (while having the same conclusion) because a strong argument has the ability to give the reader, or the person hearing about this argument, a sense of belief and trustworthiness from the argument's premises and its conclusion, as well as, leads to a more plausible claim rather than a seemingly dubious one. While a valid argument may technically achieve the same idea, a strong argument does not have the characteristic or tendency of "begging the question". Yet, it also depends on the situation given, and exactly what the person is trying to prove as well as the evidence they have in that argument to better determine if they should go along to distribute a valid or strong argument. Also be aware that simply commenting on how valid or strong your argument is, in your argument, doesn't make it so.
A bad argument would be considered an argument that does not give good enough reason to believe what is happening is necessarily truth. It can also be less plausible, rarely likely to occur, than the conclusion to be considered a bad argument.
Example One (strong): The door is locked to my dorm; my roommate never locks the door if she's there and is rarely inside when the door is locked. Therefore, no one is in our dorm.
Example Two (valid): The door is locked to my dorm, therefore, no one, not even my roommate, is in our dorm.
Both of these arguments are exactly the same. Yet, with a strong argument, you receive that extra comfort of having that bit more believability, and have a lesser chance of "begging the question" of other possibilities that could lead to a locked door.
I definitely agree that having a strong argument is better than having an argument that is valid. I find that a strong argument holds more of a reason to believe that it is true. In my opinion, when there is a highly unlikely chance but still a possibility for a premise to be false, it presents itself to have more meaning and strength. This does not necessarily mean that I do not believe a valid argument is not as believable, but a strong argument almost seems to have more power in presenting itself when part of the argument could be false.
ReplyDeleteI really like your last sentence, especially the mention of the "power" that strong arguments give that valid ones tend to not illustrate.
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting, I appreciate your thoughts, man. :D