So, why should we fact-check?
IN LOGIC, THE CONCLUSION TO ANY VALID ARGUMENT IS ONLY AS STRONG AS THE
PREMISES GIVEN TO SUPPORT IT.
Premises are the Foundation, but if they are Weak or Unsupportable then your Conclusion will
collapse. So, if someone is basing a Conclusion on certain specific facts given as all or part of
a premise(s), it is necessary to evaluate whether or not said facts are true.
EXAMPLE:
PREMISE 1- All Members of Party A Voted against Issue B.
PREMISE 2- Issue B, if passed, will lower taxes.
CONCLUSION: PARTY A VOTED AGAINST LOWERING TAXES.
This is a very basic example, but I find that some form of it is being used constantly
by Politicians trying to drag down the opposition.
FOR THE CONCLUSION TO BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, WE MUST FIRST ESTABLISH THAT
BOTH PREMISES ARE FACTUAL.
As you see, Premises 1 and 2 are quite different from each other, in how difficult it would be to
establish each as factual. The first premise would need only a simple survey of voting records to
establish its reality, but it alone does not lead to said conclusion.
The Second Premise is a different story. JUST CLAIMING THAT ISSUE B WILL LOWER TAXES
DOES NOT ESTABLISH IT AS A STATEMENT OF FACT.
to be continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment