HOW TO SUBMIT A SUGGESTION FOR CHANGING A DIALECTICAL BOOK

Some of my posts on Medium are dialectical books, for instance, “The Washington, D.C. UFO Overflights of July, 1952,” is a dialectical book. If you want to suggest a change to an argument in a dialectical book, you can go to the book and make a comment containing the suggestion.

This guide will give you the information you need to maximize your chances of submission-acceptance.

How to Formulate and Submit a Submission

Definitions

The main text consists only of three- or four-part arguments; the parts are: two or three premises and one conclusion. (Responses to these arguments will not necessarily consist of such arguments.) Here’s an example of an argument:

(r) If the FBI failed, in its application to the FISA court, to accurately and honestly describe the sources of information contained in the dossier, then the FBI is guilty of having violated its internal rules and procedures, and the motives of the FBI officials involved should be investigated.

In fact, (s) the FBI did fail, in its application to the FISA court, to accurately and honestly describe the sources of information contained in the dossier. Neither the initial FISA application nor any of the renewals disclose that Steele was ultimately working for, and was paid by, the DNC and Clinton campaign, even though senior DOJ and FBI officials knew of the dossier’s political origins.

The application also fails to mention that the FBI had authorized payment to Steele, a former British spy, for the dossier.

(t) So, the FBI is guilty of having violated its internal rules and procedures, and the motives of the FBI officials involved should be investigated.[r,s 1]

A “logic bracket” is a bracket with 2 letters and a number in it. In the example above, “[r,s 1]” is a logic bracket.

A “conclusion” is any statement ending with a logic bracket. In the example above, (t) is a conclusion because it ends in the logic bracket, “[r,s 1]”.

A “premise” is any statement that’s named by either of the letters in a logic bracket. In the example, statement (r) and statement (s) are premises.

A statement can be both a conclusion (if it’s got a logic bracket at the end) and a premise (if it’s named in a logic bracket.)

The number in a logic bracket will identify the kind of argument to which the conclusion belongs. In the example, “1” points to the first logical form; there are nine of them, 1–9. For an explanation of these, see the “Logic Guide” below.

STEPS:

Step 1. If you agree with the conclusion of an argument, you might want to suggest a way that the argument can be strengthened, clarified, made more concise, made more expressive or aesthetic, or corrected in some other way that doesn’t affect its truth value.

Step 2. If you agree with the conclusion of an argument, you can construct a new argument, modeled on the example above, to support the same conclusion.

Step 3. If you disagree with a premise or conclusion of an argument, you can suggest a reply to it. Your reply can, but need not, consist of a three-part (counter) argument like the example above — use one of the logical forms listed in the “Logic Guide” below. If you think that a conclusion is unproven or false, it might be because one or both premises are unproven or false — if this is the case, address the premise(s) instead of the conclusion.

Step 4. You might want to reply to a reply. Your reply can, but need not, consist of a three-part (counter) argument modeled on the example above — use one of the logical forms listed in the “Logic Guide” below.

Step 5. If you agree with the premises, but not the conclusion, compare the form of the argument with the forms in the “Logic Guide” below. You might spot a logical error and can then suggest a way to correct it. Even if you disagree with a premise, you still might see a logical error that you might suggest a correction for.

Step 6. You might want to construct an entirely new argument, with a new conclusion. If you do, model it on the example above, using one of the logical forms listed in the “Logic Guide” below.

LOGIC GUIDE

Argument Forms (2, 3, 5 and 8 are not traditional forms):

(where “p” and “q” each stands for a statement [with a noun and a verb]):

(1) Modus Ponens [MP]

If p then q
p
________
q

Here is an example of an argument that has Modus Ponens form:

(a) If Col. Garrett had had no need to know about the Roswell debris, then Col. McCoy, even if he had known about the recovery of exotic debris near Roswell, would not have mentioned such debris in the letter he sent in response to Garrett’s inquiry. (b)There was, in fact, no need for Garrett to know about any crashed UFO to do his job. (c)So, it is distinctly possible that McCoy knew about the Roswell materials, yet would nevertheless have sent the letter that implied that no such evidence existed. [a,b 1]

In this example, in essence, p = “Col. Garrett had had no need to know about the Roswell debris,” and q = “Col. McCoy, would not have mentioned such debris in the letter.” Notice how b affirms p, and c affirms q.

(2) Biconditional Modus Ponens [BMP]

p if and only if q
p
_______________
q

(3) Conjunctive Modus Ponens [CMP]

If p, and if q, then r
p
q
_______________
r

Here is an example of an argument that has Conjunctive Modus Ponens form:

(a)If the witnesses are respected individuals, and if the properties of the recovered materials as described by these witnesses indicate that the materials were exotic (“nothing made on this earth,” to use Maj. Marcel’s expression [B&M p 28]), then the materials were, in fact, exotic. (b)In fact, the witnesses in this case are respectable. Many, Jesse Marcel, Jr., Bill Brazel, Frankie Rowe, Phyllis McGuire, and Walt Whitmore, Jr., are the sons and daughters of those most intimately involved: Some have or had held positions of substantial responsibility.

(c)The descriptions, by the witnesses, of the recovered materials express clearly that the materials were exotic. (d)Therefore, the materials were, in fact, exotic and “nothing made on this earth.” [a,b,c 3]

In this example, in essence, p = “The witnesses are respected individuals,” q = “The properties of the recovered materials as described by these witnesses indicate that they were exotic,” and r = “The materials were exotic.”

(4) Modus Tollens [MT]

If p then q
not q
________
not p

Here is an example of an argument that has Modus Tollens form:

(a) McCoy did not know of any such materials. But, (b) if alien materials had been recovered, then McCoy would’ve known about them. So, we can be sure that (c) no alien materials had been recovered in New Mexico in 1947. [b,a 4]

In this example, p = “Alien materials had been recovered,” and q = “McCoy knew [ = would’ve known] about the materials.” The argument appears in the text with premises reversed, i.e., as

not q
If p then q
________
not p

but the form remains Modus Tollens.

(5) Complex Modus Tollens [CMT]

If p and if q, then r
q
not r
______________
not p

Example of an argument that has Complex Modus Tollens form:

(a) If these men knew about such materials, and if they believed it to be more of a social scientific issue than an issue of national security, then they would’ve told Jeffrey about the materials. (b) In fact, they must’ve realized that it was more of a social or scientific issue than one of national security, (c) and, in fact, they did not tell Jeffrey about the recovery of any exotic materials. (d) Therefore, they probably did not know about any such materials.[a,b,c 5]

In this example, p = “These men knew about such materials,” q = “They believed it to be more of a social scientific issue than an issue of national security”, and r = “They would’ve told Jeffrey about the materials.”

(6) Hypothetical Syllogism [HS]

If p then q
If q then r
_______
If p then r

Example of an argument that has Hypothetical Syllogism form:

(a) If alien materials had been recovered from a crashed saucer in 1947, then they would have been taken to Wright-Patterson, and (b) if any such alien debris had been taken to Wright-Patterson, then Colonel McCoy, as Chief of Intelligence of AMC would have known about it. All of this means that (c) if alien materials had been recovered, then McCoy would’ve known about it.[a,b 6]

(7) Disjunctive Syllogism [DS]

p or q
not-p
_____
q

(8) (one kind of) Categorical Syllogism [CS] — A, B, and C each stands for a term, not a statement

All A are B
All B are C
_________
All A are C

Example of an argument that has Categorical Syllogism form:

(a) Any flying saucer would be an unimaginably sophisticated flying machine. (b) Any unimaginably sophisticated flying machine would never crash [i.e. would never be a thing that crashes] (c) Therefore, a flying saucer would not crash.[a,b 8]

(9) In general, an “Id+” can be added; for instance: Id+Modus Ponens [Id+MP]

Since all owls are birds, this is valid (where “x” is an adjective):

If a bird is x then q
This owl is x
q