When does an argument have the goods? What does it take to be a good argument?
Vividity
Or clarity. (I needed “V” word. Give me a break alright?) Is it clear just what the other person is talking about? What about their terms? Are they vividly clear?
Now, I don't mean clear words, I mean clear terms (the things to which the words refer). For example, “dwarf” is a word. The term, that might be that short, hairy, guy in the mountain that owes me money. (“Pay up, dwarf!”)
It seems mighty hard to get any truth or logic done without clear terms. Nebulous terms easily get unwieldy, like jelly. Jelly is quite unwieldy (and sticky). It's hard to predicate abstract jelly. And without predication, there's no proposition. No claim! And if there's no claim, then it can't be true and there's no logic inference from it. No truth. No logic. That's seems be pretty bad as far as making a good argument goes.
Another thing that might be going on with unclear terms is that the word does have meaning but not the same meaning through out. (It's a shapeshifter! Maybe.) It's not refering to the same thing throughout the argument. That nefarious turn of events undermines the logic. Observe:
- If Pen goes to the can (bathroom), he will bring down the house (utter devastation).
- Pen goes to the can (of yams).
- Therefore, Pen will bring down the house (dance party!!!).
For nebulous or vague terms, one might just try to guess at the author’s intended meaning or to ask for clarification, but technically, the argument is no good if it doesn't communicate, and no one wants that. Better to have vividly clear terms.
Verity
But say we have good terms. Say the premises the claims being asserted are lucid. How do we know if the ideas being claimed therein are true?[1] Sometimes we don’t. Sorry. It sucks, I know. But, if a premise has to do with (say) events off-world in another realm (or if it is privileged information), then the claim might be true, but it’d be mighty hard for a Terran to tell.[2]
So, it’s one thing for the conclusion to be true. It’s another for us to be able to tell from the argumentation that it is true.
Viability
The premises of an argument need to be true, but they also need to be plausible for the argument to be viable.
Plausibility is somewhat subjective and hard to be precise about, but it needn't be an exact science. The premises need not be among The Most Obviously True Statements Ever!TM They need only be more plausible than their opposites, negations. That much doesn’t guarantee a strong argument, but on good logic, it does guarantee one of some merit.[3]
Validity
People know good reason from bad even if they never study logic. BS gets smelled more often than it gets called by a formal name. Sometimes the exact fallacy is hard to detect though. Sometimes the wording makes it hard. It might be intentionally opaque or muddied up or maybe the prose is just too sloppy to make much sense of. If the intended argument can be discerned, great. If not (or if it’s not worth the going in after), their bad. Exact arguments often need a little teasing out. Then checking the validity is easier. So, common sense often does the trick, but it also helps to look a little into logical validity a little bit.[4]
Wrapping It Up
If an argument's conclusion can be seen to follow from true premises, it's a good argument. That leaves four main things open to critique: vividity, verity, viability, and validity (or terms, premises, and inference). There are other good things to discuss about an argument, but if it shows the truth of its conclusion, it's gravy.[5]
[1] Assumptions might be thought of as separate from premises, but they can be considered premises too and treated the same.
[2] Worlds meaning planets and realms referring to what at least seem like causally-isolated physical environments.
[3] Additionally, plausibility can change with the generally available facts. The sun seems to orbit the planet, but these days a little consideration of today's generally available facts makes that idea much much less plausible than its negation. Someone new to the earth might argue: (A) If most every witness sees the sun orbiting the earth, then it does, and (B) most every witness does see the sun orbiting the earth, so (C) it does. They have validity, and A makes sense to them, but they have seriously (though understandably) failed to consider all the relevant and generally available facts.
[4] Quick google search: https://sites.millersville.edu/bikenaga/math-proof/rules-of-inference/rules-of-inference.html and https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_logic.html
[5] The construction in this post is a working attempt to encapsulate into merits, the ol' counsel of assessing arguments along the lines of: clear terms, true premises, and valid arguments. Other factors worth discussing may include: pop-appeal, length, and stuff like that.