Key terms and concepts

There is a sense in which one can conduct an archeological dig on the Arguments in Action component and find traces of earlier courses and intended courses that never materialised. When the CfE courses were being developed in 2010 and 2011 there was an emphasis on skills. The traditional K/U, A & E had been known to be problematic in philosophy for all sorts of reasons not least because what passed as the skills of analysis and evaluation was, more often than not, simply the recall of somebody else's analysis and evaluation. One suggestion (one that wasn't taken up) was that instead of pushing on with these supposed skills thought should be given to the skills that philosophers actually use. There might have been three units — metaphysics, epistemology and moral philosophy — and they would be taught not just for their content but to highlight philosophical skills.

• Thought experiments were introduced because of Locke's locked room, the malicious demon, Nozick's experience machine and comparing hypothetical universes to arrive at Ideal Utilitarianism. Teaching thought experiments as a standalone topic became problematic and has now been dropped.
  
• Counter-examples were introduced because of Gettier examples, Hume's missing shade of blue and utilitarian examples of where the seemingly right thing to do fails to maximise utility.
  
• Analogical arguments were identified in Hobbes' water analogy, Paley on design, and Hume on the reason of animals. In this case the identified analogies have disappeared from the course but the topic of analogical arguments remains.
  
• Various fallacies were identified. Ambiguity in the form of equivocation was noted as a possible fallacy in Mill's defence of utilitarianism. Other fallacies were linked to other parts of the course, e.g. circularity in Descartes and Hume's avoidance of circularity in Section IV of the Enquiries, even though these fallacies never made it into the course.
  
• There were other issues of argument and criticism that were identified but were never singled out, e.g. self-contradiction was identified in the way in which hard determinist arguments might make themselves unreliable, Descartes claiming that you cannot doubt your own existence and Kant's contradiction in conception.
  
• Places in the units that utilised inductive and deductive reasoning were identified.
  

This integrated approach never materialised and there is now no expectation that links will be made between the Arguments in Action component and the other areas of the course. However, stepping back and recognising the skills and argumentative techniques that philosophers actually use may still enable some candidates gain a greater depth of understanding.

The Arguments in Action component now stands on its own and its various disparate topics have been effectively drawn together under the idea of informal logic. Although the emphasis now is on ordinary everyday argumentation it should not be forgotten that when philosophers write and argue they are rarely using some specialised language. They are usually using the same argumentative techniques as everyone else.

When considering the current content it is important to note that resources can differ even in their definitions of such well-established terms as ‘deductive’, ‘inductive’, ‘valid’, ‘sound’, etc. These pages highlight some of those issues but for definitive guidance on what is required reference should always be made to the SQA's own documentation.