Davin

Answer

Davin. I don't know why you keep telling me I need Fnorbert in my life. I've lived without Fnorbert for 20 years and I'm doing just fine.
Alexandrea. I will prove that you need Fnorbert in your life. To think a man can live without Fnorbert (creator of the universe) is like thinking a man's left hand can live and thrive away from the rest of his body.

There's actually two ways of taking Alexandrea's argument. First, it can be taken as a specific argument that only applies to Davin. In this case, we would take Alexandrea to be making a comparison between Davin and somebody's left hand, without implying that the analogy applies to anyone other than Davin. But this seems like a somewhat arbitrary restriction, so we could also see Alexandrea as using this analogy to make a generalization about all people, and only incidentally applying it to Davin. For purposes of illustration, I will give both scaefods. Notice how my interpretation of Davin's argument changes with my interpretation of Alexandrea's argument.

Scaefod 1.

Davin 1. Davin has lived without Fnorbert for 20 years.
          2. Davin has done fine all that time.
          C. Davin does not need Fnorbert.                     DIRECT

Alexandrea 1. Davin's relationship to Fnorbert is like a hand's relationship to its owner's body.
                   2. A hand cannot live without its body.
                   C. Davin cannot live without Fnorbert.                                              OPPOSING

Alexandrea bears the burden of proof because she is arguing that Davin needs something that he thinks he has done perfectly well without for 20 years. Davin does not bear the burden of proof because if there is no proof either way on the issue of whether or not you need something, then the most reasonable conclusion is that you do not need it.

Davin. Explanation argument.                                          Alexandrea. Analogy argument.
           Thing: Davin did fine without Fnorbert.                                    Analog: Davin's relationship with Fnorbert.
           Explanation: Davin doesn't need Fnorbert.                               Model: hand's relationship with body.
                                                                                                         Property: the first cannot live without the second.

Fist of Death: Ordinarily, the fact that someone has done without something for 20 years is stunningly clear evidence that he doesn't need that thing. Alexandrea would have to come up with an extremely powerful argument to overcome the burden imposed by this fact. She doesn't even come close. First, there are no relevant similarities between the two relationships in question. Second, there are enormous differences between a hand's relationship to its body, which is substantiated by a visible physical connection between the two, and Davin's relationship to Fnorbert, who isn't even tangible, let alone visibly connected to Davin.

Scaefod 2.

Davin 1. Davin has lived without Fnorbert for 20 years.
          2. Davin has done fine all that time.
          (3. If all men needed Fnorbert, then Davin would not have done fine for any of that time.)
          C. It is not true that all men need Fnorbert.                                         DIRECT

Alexandrea 1. A man's relationship to Fnorbert is like a hand's relationship to its owner's body.
                  2. A hand cannot live without its body.
                  C. All men need Fnorbert.                                                            OPPOSING

Alexandrea bears the burden of proof because she is arguing that all men (and presumably all women) need something that the vast majority of them believe they don't need. It's true that the fact that a lot of people believe something is usually a bad argument, but it is also true that people are generally the best judges of their own needs. If I'm going to tell you that you need something that you don't think you need, then I'd better have some evidence. If I can't come up with that evidence, then you should believe that you don't need that thing, even if you can't come up with any argument to support that belief.

Davin. Explanation argument.                                           Alexandrea. Analogy argument.
          Thing: Davin did fine without Fnorbert.                  [although the conclusion is a generalization, it's supported by analogy, not by a sample.]
          Explanation: Not all men need Fnorbert.                                   Analog: man's relationship with Fnorbert.
                                                                                                          Model: hand's relationship with body.
                                                                                                          Property: the first cannot live without the second.

Fist of Death: Since Alexandrea's conclusion is a generalization that purports to cover all people, a single counter-example is enough to refute it. Davin provides that counter-example, so Alexandrea would have to knock down Davin's argument with a counter argument before she could even say she's proved that it is possible that all people need Fnorbert. She has no counter argument, and there is nothing visibly wrong with Davin's argument, so no matter what opposing argument she has, she cannot prove that all men need Fnorbert. The most she could do is offer an argument that is just as strong as Davin's. In that case we would have two equally strong opposing arguments, which would mean that the best supported conclusion here would be the null hypothesis. Since that is basically Davin's conclusion, that would mean that Davin wins. But we don't have to worry about this possibility because Alexandrea offers a comparison between a relationship between two things that have both been abundantly proved to exist, and a relationship between one thing that exists and a thing that, as far as anyone can prove, does not exist.

Use your browser's "back" key to return to your place in the reading.

This Site is Proudly Hosted By: