Evaluating philosophical claims and theories
- 1. Evaluating philosophical arguments, claims and theories.
- 2. Philosophy is the search for fundamental beliefs that are justified…. Therefore.. Try to avoid ‘bottom line syndrome’. When you read an argument advanced by a philosopher, avoid simply agreeing or disagreeing with the author’s conclusion without paying attention to whether the philosopher has provided good reasons in support of their conclusion. If you do this, then your evaluation is missing the point. For example- someone who believes in God (a theist) would agree with the conclusion of Thomas Aquinas’s arguments (i.e.“There is a God”). But some theists do not think that Aquinas’s arguments are strong.
- 3. Weak vs. True When we demonstrate that an argument is weak we do not necessarily prove that the conclusion is false. We have merely shown that the reasons the author has given for the conclusion do not guarantee its truth. Remembering that not all philosophical claims and theories use deductive reasoning. Nevertheless, if the arguments are overwhelmingly weak, we really have no reason to suppose that the conclusion is true, but it could be valid- in terms of the way the principles of logic have been used. As students of philosophy you need to attempt to find objective reasons why we should or should not believe that a claim is true. Remember to
- 4. The Four C’s- Clarity Conceptual clarity is the first test that a philosophy must pass. If the terms or concepts in which the philosophy is expressed are not clear, then we do not know precisely what claim is being put forth. What are the terms which are used? Are they clear? What is meant by perfection? Ambiguity of terms can mean that an arguments lacks clarity.
- 5. The Four C’s- Consistency Consistency is the second test that a philosophy must pass. A philosophy cannot contain any contradictions. One way a philosophy fails this test is through logical inconsistency, which consists of making two assertions that could not both be true under any possible circumstances. For example, if I claim that God determines everything that happens in the world at the same time that I claim that humans have free will, I appear to have an inconsistency. The first claim implies that God determines what choices we make, but this claim seems to conflict with the claim that we freely make our own choices.
- 6. The Four C’s- Consistency continued A second kind of inconsistency is more subtle. It is called self- referential inconsistency, and it occurs if an assertion implies that it itself cannot be true, or cannot be known to be true, or should not be believed. For example- “Only statements that can be scientifically proven should be believed” is a statement that cannot be scientifically proven.
- 7. The Four C’s- Coherence Rational coherence is a criterion that considers how well the various parts of a philosophy come together. The elements of a philosophy may not be explicitly contradictory, but they can still fail to fit together very well. A philosopher who believes that God acts in the world but who fails to explain how that belief fits together with the belief that nature run according to universal physical laws has articulated a philosophy that lacks coherence.
- 8. The Three C’s- Comprehensiveness We evaluate a philosophy positively if it makes sense out of a wide range of phenomena; we evaluate it negatively if it ignores significant areas of human experience or raises more questions than it answers. For example- A philosopher who claims that all morality is derived from the Ten Commandments but who fails to explain how some cultures have developed similar moral principles even if they never heard of these commandments fails in terms of comprehensiveness.
- 9. Persuasiveness After using the 4 C’s, you need to decide how persuasive a philosophical argument/claim/ theory is. These signposts can help structure your response. These passages suggest…I will now defend the claim…Further support for this claim comes from…The strongest objection to this point is…However; the objection does not succeed because…There are three reasons to believe point X. Firstly….Use connective words such as: because, since, given this argument, thus, therefore, hence, it follows that, consequently, nevertheless, however or or on the other hand.