It's sounds like we argue to defend the truth of a claim. An explanation takes the claim we convincingly defended to be true and now provide the causes that situated the claim to be true not whether it's true or not. I think explanation and argument is confusing, because both deal with truth values. However, argument tries to determine if the claim is true. An explanation tries to find the sources of the truth claim: how is it possible that X is the case. The evidence shows X is true. Now, I want to understand how X became true to begin with. Explanation deals with truth values, like argumentation. It's just the claims possess truth values, and one type of thinking gets me to believe something to be case, and another type of thinking tries to get me to see the reasons the claim is true, not reasons to show that it's true. The language is so freakin subtle, it's so difficult to decipher this incredible razor line between argument and explanation.
Question: if I'm telling a person that Johnny is a really nice person, I give evidence to get you to infer that john is really nice. If I'm trying to explain that Johnny is nice, the issue is not telling you that Johnny is nice and support with it evidence, but give reasons as to how Johnny is nice. What causes him to be nice, given that we grant now that Johnny is nice.
The 4th example about "crazyheart" is not detailed enough to show whether an argument is present or explanation. 4) "Crazyheart" was overated. The plot was weak and the acting anemic. This could be an argument, because the two premises lead me to infer the conclusion of the movie crazyheart being overrated. However, your two premises could explain how the film was overrated, not determine that film was overated. 1) it was overated, because X to show that it is overated. 2) it was overated, because X to explain how it was overated. Your fourth example is actually to ambiguous and therefore can breed more confusion.
not true. a tautological and valid argument can have identical premises and conclusion. Also, at least some explanations are arguments and i believe you'd be hard pressed to find an explination that is not also an argument. An argument is a series of statements in support of a conclusion. An explination for "why" a fact is is exactly that. why is this the hottest year on record? Smog levels have increased higher than any other previous year. Increase in smog leads to increase in temperature, therfore temperatures have increased higher than any other year. That's an argument.
The explanation you described is not an argument unless the speaker intends to convince. Your remark on tautological arguments is technically correct, but pedantic.
This series is absolutely remarkable, thank you so much!
This entire series is amazing. Thank you for posting that.
Hallelujah! You have persuaded me beyond reasonable doubt! This is a great and insightful video. Thank you for posting.
2020 and still using this series, awesome thank you!
Brilliant! Love these!
This was extremely helpful!!!! Thank you for posting these.
I like your passion, the way you present things is amazing
Philosophers are rarely hindered by actual facts
@@jnpkzwjx it means she hates Philosophers
It's sounds like we argue to defend the truth of a claim. An explanation takes the claim we convincingly defended to be true and now provide the causes that situated the claim to be true not whether it's true or not.
I think explanation and argument is confusing, because both deal with truth values. However, argument tries to determine if the claim is true. An explanation tries to find the sources of the truth claim: how is it possible that X is the case. The evidence shows X is true. Now, I want to understand how X became true to begin with.
Explanation deals with truth values, like argumentation. It's just the claims possess truth values, and one type of thinking gets me to believe something to be case, and another type of thinking tries to get me to see the reasons the claim is true, not reasons to show that it's true.
The language is so freakin subtle, it's so difficult to decipher this incredible razor line between argument and explanation.
👍 Gold ✨
Wow this was amazing, You are really the real life Nanny Mcfee
love this
Question: if I'm telling a person that Johnny is a really nice person, I give evidence to get you to infer that john is really nice. If I'm trying to explain that Johnny is nice, the issue is not telling you that Johnny is nice and support with it evidence, but give reasons as to how Johnny is nice. What causes him to be nice, given that we grant now that Johnny is nice.
very helpful and useful! tank you!
The 4th example about "crazyheart" is not detailed enough to show whether an argument is present or explanation.
4) "Crazyheart" was overated. The plot was weak and the acting anemic. This could be an argument, because the two premises lead me to infer the conclusion of the movie crazyheart being overrated. However, your two premises could explain how the film was overrated, not determine that film was overated.
1) it was overated, because X to show that it is overated.
2) it was overated, because X to explain how it was overated.
Your fourth example is actually to ambiguous and therefore can breed more confusion.
not true. a tautological and valid argument can have identical premises and conclusion. Also, at least some explanations are arguments and i believe you'd be hard pressed to find an explination that is not also an argument. An argument is a series of statements in support of a conclusion. An explination for "why" a fact is is exactly that. why is this the hottest year on record? Smog levels have increased higher than any other previous year. Increase in smog leads to increase in temperature, therfore temperatures have increased higher than any other year. That's an argument.
The explanation you described is not an argument unless the speaker intends to convince. Your remark on tautological arguments is technically correct, but pedantic.