Something I found interesting while reading chapter 15 was the concept of "normal conditions."
As stated in our book, normal conditions are "the obvious and plausible unstated claims that are needed to establish that the relationship between purported cause and purported effect is valid or strong."
What this mean is that while making an argument, people tend to state what is important and tend to leave claims which are obvious and therefore do not necessarily require to be stated.
For example, let's say that I was babysitting my two years old brother and that his screaming woke me up. The cause is obvious: my brother crying. And the effect is then: I woke up.
Obviously, my brother's crying woke me up. This cause is therefore the normal condition. However, I could also say that "my brother's room is right next to mine," "My brother usually does not cry during the night," etc. These statements are however obvious, and are therefore not needed, unless someone challenges my arguments.
I really like your post. Your example made it very clear. I didn’t really understand the topic of normal conditions until I read it. It makes sense though. There are lots of times where people are trying to tell you something and they skip the important part and instead tell you the stuff you already know and that is obvious. I liked how you stated your claim and then gave alternative examples to give your definition. For instance, you said something about “I could have said the baby doesn’t usually cry.” This is a claim as well but it definitely falls under normal conditions.
ReplyDelete