Page 73 - Smart Thinking: Skills for Critical Understanding and Writing, 2nd Ed
P. 73

60   SMART THINKING: SKILLS FOR CRITICAL UNDERSTANDING & WRITING

         e. I imagine that if another state or territory were to pass similar laws, then
            media reporting of the legislation would be very extensive.
         f. Some politicians argued that media reporting at the time of the
            Northern Territory legislation encouraged some terminally ill people to
            move there.


       Well-founded claims

      The problem of 'true' claims

      A claim, whether it is a conclusion or a premise, has one essential property: that it
       claims to be a true statement (either actual or possible—what is or what ought to
       be). Hence, while claims must first be well formed, so that we can express this state
       of affairs precisely, claims must also be well founded, so that their truth is not too
       easily called into question. If I were to say, 'This book will totally change your life!',
      you would probably not accept this claim, because as it stands, this claim is
       unfounded (not based on believable intellectual foundations) and is thus of
       doubtful truth.
         The whole purpose of using reasoning is, in fact, to give foundations (via the
      premises) for the conclusion, to show that it is acceptable, or to establish an accept-
       able explanation of it. Obviously, then, the 'well-foundedness' of the premises
       becomes equally (if not more) important than the well-foundedness of the con-
       clusion. How can an audience assess our conclusion except by first considering the
       premises? Indeed, for any claim to be well founded, whether it be conclusion or
       premise, there must be some reason(s) for the audience accepting it. Every claim,
       in this sense, must be treated as a conclusion in need of premises. Every argument
       or explanation in which we use premises to prove a conclusion depends, therefore,
       on other arguments or explanations, which establish those premises. We have seen
       this situation in some of the examples in previous chapters, in which a conclusion
       is reached only after a series of arguments (arranged in a complex structure) have
       been developed.
         Here is an example:
          1. Australia is a good country in which to live.
         2. Countries that permit freedom of religious expression are good places
             to live.
         3. Australia permits freedom of religious expression.
         4. Australia has no laws that forbid any religion.
         5. The people who live in Australia let others practise their religions
             peacefully even if they do not agree with those religions.
         6. If a country has no laws against individual religions and the people of
             that country do not object to any religious practices, then freedom of
             religious expression exists in that country.
   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78