BURROW
This follow-up assignment is designed for students whose grasp of relevant
arguments is good but who seem to have trouble getting started in an organized
way.
This technique is called "burrowing" because you "burrow"
logically into the topic from a random starting point and then "buurow"
along whatever veins of logic you happen to come across. It's not the quickest
way of coming to a conclusion, but it's a good way to get started, and you can
make a lot of progress by burrowing.
The
first thing to remember is that you just deal with one topic at a time,
and ignore all other topics untill you've said everything you can about that
one topic.
The second thing to remember is that, while you're dealing
with that one topic, you only move on to a new argument as indicated
by the logic of the arguments you've already considered. If an argument isn't
directly relevant to the point you're just considering, ignore it until either
it is relevant or you have to pick a new starting point. The aim of this exercise
is to stop you from skipping from topic to topic like a performing flea, and
to get you to begin logical analysis of the issue.
First, do what you
can to
figure out which side bears the burden of proof, and write a paragraph explaining
which it is and why. (Call this the "pro" side.) If the burden of
proof isn't clear, pick one side at random to be the pro side, and
explain why you can't figure out which side has the burden of proof.
Second, pick
the best argument you can find for the pro side, or pick a pro argument
at random, and write a paragraph
explaining that argument as clearly and completely as you can.
Third, search
the "con" side of the issue for things that look like they could be
made into answers to that particular pro argument. If you can come up with your
own criticisms, do that to.
Fourth, out of all the criticisms you've
come up with, pick the one that seems most likely to work, or else pick one
at random, and write a paragraph explaining that criticism as clearly and completely
as you can. It's a good idea to standardize this argument in your notes before
you start this paragraph. Make sure that the conclusion
Fifth, decide
which of these two arguments is weaker based on the principles you are studying
in this course, and write a paragraph explaining which argument is weaker and
why. That weaker argument "loses" this encounter, the stronger argument
"wins," at least for now.
After you've gotten
started, the basic method of burrowing is to pick the argument that "won"
last time and try pit it against the opposing or counter argument that
has the best chance of defeating it. (This is rather like Pokemon Duelling,
only with arguments instead of Pocket Monsters.) So, when you've done the
fifth step, do steps three, four and five again against whatever argument won
tha last encounter. If you run out of arguments in this sequence, say which
side won this particular logical struggle and start again with some argument
you haven't touched before. Keep doing this until you run out of time, or get
tired of doing it.
When you finally run out of steam, write a short
paragraph explaining whatever limited and tentative conclusion(s) are most supported
by the evidence and arguments you have covered in this exercise. (See conclusion.htm
if you need help with this bit.) Explain any loose ends and/or unanswered questions
you see, and add any other comments you feel like adding.
Here is an
example of "burrowing" into a topic. (This is just to show you how
to follow out a logical thread. You certainly don't have to agree with my reasoning.
I made up the statements by "Bella," "Juris" and "Logy"
anyway.)
"Bella and Juris disagree about the
morality of the US invasion of Iraq. Bella says it is right and Juris says it
is wrong. Since the US did the invading and Iraq wasn't attacking anyone at
the time, and (according to Juris) the UN Charter forbids member states from
starting wars, Bella bears the initial burden of proof.
Bella's
first argument is that the invasion is justified under UNSCR 1441, which allowed
for military force if Iraq fails to eliminate all of it's weapons of mass destruction.
This shifts the burden to Juris to show that UNSCR 1441 doesn't allow the US
to invade Iraq.
Juris points out that UNSCR 1441 only
says that the UN Security Council can meet Iraq's failure to disarm with military
force, if it is proved that Iraq has failed to disarm. It doesn't authorise
any specific military action by any specific member state.
Bella
mentions that Iraq hasn't proved that there are no weapons of mass destruction
hidden somewhere in Iraq, so that Iraq still is in violation of UNSCR 1441,
and therefore force is justified.
Juris has several replies
to this point. I think the most important one is where he says that UNSCR
1441 did not give the US the authority to decide whether or not the Iraqis had
violated the resolution. The only people saying that the Iraqis are in violation
are the US. The UN is not saying this, and the UN Security Council has not given
the US, or anyone, the authority to invade Iraq.
Bella says that even if the UN Security Council hasn't declared
that Iraq is violating UNSCR 1441, they still are violating it, and, as a member
state of the UN, the US has a duty to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions.
Juris replies that if member states have authority to invade
countries that violate UNSC Resolutions, then France has authority to invade
Turkey, Russia has authority to invade Morocco, and everyone has the right to
invade Israel. Juris doesn't say it, but a situation where individual countries
go about taking the law into their own hands seems like a very bad situation
to me, so I find it hard to believe that the UN Charter allows this kind of
situation. If it doesn't, then the invasion of Iraq is illegal under the
UN charter.
Bella says that Juris is wrong about
this because the US is invading Iraq to fight terroism. Since Juris doesn't
say anything about this argument (I think his article was written before Bella's)
I can't give you an answer from his article. However, Bella doesn't say how
doing something "to" stop terrorism can make that thing legal.
I thought of my own analogy here. Say someone is on trial for breaking into
your house while you're at work and taking your stereo, and say he proves beyond
a shadow of doubt that he honestly and sincerely believed that he was doing
it to stop terrorism, would that mean that what he did was legal? It
wouldn't, so Bella's argument doesn't prove that the US invasion of Iraq is
legal. The fact that she offers this irrelevant claim in reply to Juris' argument
suggests that she's trying to distract us, which would be a Red Herring fallacy. In
fact, since the issue of terrorism is so emotional for most people, Bella is
probably committing a Manipulation fallacy by appealing to people's fear
of terrorism rather than to the actual facts.
These
are all the arguments I had time for. As far as I can tell from the evidence
I have looked at so far, Juris has proved that the US invasion violates the
UN Charter. That doesn't necessarily make it morally wrong, but it does put
the burden of proof back on Bella to show that the US is justified in violating
the UN charter to invade Iraq. I haven't had time to look very closely at that
issue, so I'm not going to write about it here."
Copyright © 2004 by Martin C. Young
This Site is Proudly Hosted
By:
