One concept in chapter eight that I found very interesting was about general claims. in many arguments words can be very misleading and had make an invalid or false claim seem true just because of one word. Words like all, some, none, and only are all words that can have many different meanings depending on the person who is reading the claim. I grew up with an older brother and we were once arguing about who ate all the chocolate covered raisins. He stated that he only ate some of them. To me this meant that he only ate a few of them and that someone else ate the rest of the bag. But in reality he ate most of the bag but he used the word some in order to mislead me in the argument. It was nice to read about general claims because it gave the real meanings of these words so when I am judging a claim with these words in it I will not be mislead anymore.
It is true that the specific words, or terms, used explained in the Epstein text do have the tendency to carry an ambiguous undertone in various contexts and can be very misleading. Your example is very well in doing what it is supposed to do. By your brother saying that he only ate some of them, only to find out he really ate everything that was left did illustrate as you pointed out that he was trying to mislead you in the argument. I agree with your view of how the text really helps in construing concepts that sometimes we don't know how to explain in words before. It helps distinguish detailed ideas that might have been difficult to understand before, which then can help us in creating better arguments. This was a very nicely constructed post! :)
ReplyDelete