2.

4 Complex Arguments
Hello, everybody! Last unit we practiced on simple arguments.
Lets remember something: the truth of a conclusion is relying on the truth of the
premises. But, in real life, how do we know that a premise is true? Most of the times
we know a premise is true because it is the conclusion of another good argument.
Schematically, we have P1 and P2 the two premises that support the conclusion C.
But how do we know P1 is true? Well, because it is the conclusion of another good
argument, based on, lets say, premises P3 and P4. In this case, we have a new
animal. It is called a complex argument.
Lets make a short philosophical detour. You will ask, what supports premises P3 and
P4? Obviously, other arguments, based on other premises that we already know to
be true. And so on, infinitely. Because any proposition can be endlessly questioned,
like an obnoxious child that asks why? over and over again. I think you, critical
thinkers, already foresee the paradox. Its called skeptical regress and it proves that
we cannot know anything for sure. Its something that philosophers have dealt with
since the ancient Greeks. They came up with a simple structure, called the
Agrippas Trilemma (after Agrippa the Skeptic, a Greek philosopher), or
Munchhausens Trilemma (after the famous Baron who pulled himself and his horse
(!) out of a swamp by pulling his own hair). And it goes like this:
If we ask How do we know this thing is true?, the obvious answer is an argument,
where the thing (the conclusion) is supported by other things, the premises. But
now how do we know that those things are true? Well, heres the three equally
weak options:
-

the circular argument, where, somewhere along the way we explain the
premises by the final conclusion. A good example is Why do you believe in
God? Because the Bible tells us about Him. But how do you know the
Bible is true? Because its a Holy book, inspired by God.
the regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof,
endlessly; and
the axiomatic argument, in which we find some unquestionable truth as basis
for all knowledge. But, remember, the Greeks had a strong principle, that is
never take anything for granted, so this third option is also a weak one.

We just found out that we cannot positively prove anything; we have reason to
doubt everything, even the existence of the world, or even our own existence. And
some philosophers did just that, saying that all existence can very well be just an
illusion. Is there an exit from this? The French philosopher Rene Descartes thinks
there is. He found a funny way out in the third option of the trilemma, the axiomatic
argument. He found a certainty he could build upon. How? Strangely enough, by
starting at the very heart of the problem: that there is no certainty, and we need to

doubt everything. His genial argument is famous and we will also use it as a good
example for a complex argument:
He said
Dubito ergo cogito. Cogito ergo sum.
That is
I doubt therefore I think. I think therefore I am.
So, starting from general incertitude, he found an unquestionable truth, his own
existence.
Lets analyze it, the way we are used to. Its a complex argument, made of two
simple arguments. Lets put it in standard form:
The first argument has I think as conclusion, I doubt as premise, and Doubting
is a way of thinking as hidden premise. The second argument has I am as
conclusion (note the conclusion marker ergo or therefore), I think as premise,
and Thinking is a manifestation of being. as hidden premise.
Enough with philosophy and big existential questions, lets come back to the point:
Essentially, what is a complex argument made of? It is made of several simple
arguments. Please note: any complex argument, no matter how complicated it may
seem, is made by combining a series of simple arguments. So, obviously, it can be
broken up in simple arguments. That we know how to analyze But lets not go fast
forward on this.
We have here a complex argument that is made, in our case, by combining two
arguments. What other important things is it made of? The most important thing in
a complex argument is the main conclusion. That is the final conclusion, the main
claim, the point, the issue of the argument. Then, we have some premises that are
conclusion of earlier arguments. These are called intermediate conclusions. Thats
it. Not too difficult, is it? Several simple arguments, one main conclusion, premises
and intermediate conclusions. But we can have some other elements, as well.
Objections!
In order to discuss them, we must make another detour and remember what the use
of an argument is. Essentially, to reach for the truth. Remember? Its purpose,
whether we talk about a simple or a complex argument, is to support a true
conclusion. In different life circumstances, that can mean
-

to persuade, for example the lawyer in front of a jury, arguing that his client
is innocent;
to justify: a past decision, like an investigator writing a report, or to justify
beliefs, like me arguing that communism is vicious;

to explain, for example a teacher showing the demonstration of the Theorem

of Pythagoras;
to decide, to argue in favor of choosing investment A over investment B in
front of the board.

But this goal, the truth of the main conclusion, can be reached by 1) a single critical
thinker, lets say you, if, say the argument not to go to the museum is entirely
made by you, in your head. But it can also be reached 2) after a ping pong of simple
arguments, in a heated debate between two or more persons. For instance whether
Brazil would have played better if Neymar wouldnt have been injured. But please
understand that a debate is still only a complex argument with more authors, and
that its purpose is still to find the truth, and not to win no matter what! On this
topic, please watch the enlightening TED talk of Daniel Cohen by clicking the link
below. You can do it right now, pausing this video, or after youre done with it.
In a debate we can encounter the elements I mentioned: objections. They are pretty
much like premises, only that they are reasons not for, but against a part of an
argument. Objections can be
-

against a statement for instance against the conclusion, like

counterexamples All the swans Ive seen are white, therefore all swans must
be white. But yesterday, in the park, Ive seen a black swan!, or against a
premise: I think therefore I am Yes, but you assumed that thinking is a
manifestation of being, and that is impossible to prove!.
or against the inference itself (against the mechanism of the argument):
Why do you believe in God? Because the Bible tells us about Him. But
how do you know the Bible is true? Because its a Holy book, inspired by
God. Well, this is a bad argument because its circular. The conclusion that
God exists is supported by the content of the Bible, which, in turn, is
supported by the existence of God.

In a graphic representation, we note objections the way we note premises, only not
with an arrow, but with a crossed arrow towards the objected statement or towards
the arrow that stands for the objected inference.

Recap:
-

a complex argument is a series of simple arguments

it is made of simple arguments, a main conclusion, intermediate conclusions,
premises, and objections.
we use arguments to persuade, to justify, to explain, to decide, but always to
find a truth
a debate made by more than one person is still a single complex argument,
and its goal is still the truth, not winning or proving that Im smart (-er).