|
||||||
|
||||||
The first map you built reflects an argument that has correct syntax and is semantically clear. Indicator words helped you in mapping the argument because they made its logical structure very obvious. But even without these indicators you could have mapped the claims correctly by considering the meaning of each statement and working out how it 'fitted' with each of the other claims. If you had no indicators you would rely entirely on semantics to build your map.
When you evaluated the first map you relied on semantics: we can't assess whether claim A is true or not, or judge the level of support it gives claim B, without appreciating what claim A actually means.
The second map you built reflects an argument that has correct syntax, but it is semantically nonsensical. When you mapped this you were relying wholly on the indicators because the content of the claims wasn't meaningful. You couldn't evaluate this map because the claims meant nothing to you: all you had was the syntax, and that isn't enough for making sophisticated assessments about the truth and relevance of claims.
Read on if you're philosophically inclined...
The syntax/semantics distinction has important connections to the question of whether computers can think. A computer seems to work by manipulating symbols based on their 'shapes' rather than their meanings, rather like you did in making your second map. This suggests that they can't think in the same way you and I can, because they have no access to the meaning of the symbols they manipulate. The philosopher John Searle argued just this in his Chinese Room thought experiment.
This material has been developed independently of the International Baccalaureate, which in no way endorses it.
© Austhink 2013. Rationale Exercises version 0.1, Jan-13
