Writing a PT paper

Abstract

 * 1) the overall purpose of the study and the research problem(s) you investigated
 * 2) the basic design of the study
 * 3) major findings or trends found as a result of your analysis
 * 4) a brief summary of your interpretations and conclusions.

What is PT

 * Political Theory means asking: Is this a plausible interpretation of the events that we observe?

Pay attention to...

 * Make it explicit when you're reporting your own view and when you're reporting the views of some philosopher you're discussing
 * Directly address the problem!!
 * Usage of everyday discourse/notions that might mean several things to different people
 * Be as clear as possible about exactly what you think you’re achieving when you present an argument
 * Try to be as clear as possible whether you think the argument goes against something your opponent holds, and only in that way supports your own position (if you have one), or, instead, whether you think the argument supports your own position, without going against that of your opponent (if you have one), except in that way, that is, by way of supporting a position that rivals hers
 * Be clear about how decisive you think the argument in question is, that is, and if it is an argument going against your opponent, whether it refutes her position, or merely challenges it, or displays a weakness in it.
 * One should aspire to clarity, but one should not avoid possible insight for the sake of avoiding unclarity. A bad way never to make a mistake is to shut up and say nothing.
 * Ask not, what the answer means or whether it makes sense to you; ask to which question it is an answer
 * In really deep philosophical problems there are competing apparent obviousnesses. It seems obvious that we are not wrong when we describe the world commonsensically, yet it seems obvious that physics contradicts common sense.
 * When discussing principles and their implications, bear in mind to distinguish the following questions
 * (i) Is it an ideal or non-ideal theory?
 * (ii) What is justice?
 * (iii) What should the state do?
 * (iiii) Which social states of affairs ought to be brought about? How do social states rank normatively?

What is a good argument
thesis. Since subordinate propositions within the essay may have to be proved, these subordinate propositions may also be conclusions with their own sets of supporting premises. The premises are the propositions that lead to the conclusion. They provide the justification for the conclusion
 * An argument is a sequence of two or more propositions (related in some logically significant way) of which one is designated as the conclusion and all the others of which are premises.
 * One of these propositions will be designated as the conclusion; that is, the proposition that is to be proven. Within the context of an essay as a whole, the conclusion is the
 * A sound argument is an argument which is valid (i.e. the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion) and which contains only true premises.
 * An argument is valid if and only if it is necessary that if all the premises are true, then the conclusion is true.
 * A cogent argument is a sound argument that is recognized to be such in virtue of the presentation of its structure and content
 * Propositions, statements, and assertions can be true or false, but facts cannot be true or false. Facts are factual; and a proposition that states a fact is true; a proposition that does not state a fact, that is, does not fit the facts, is false. Propositions that allegedly state facts or state alleged facts, but are false are sometimes called “states of affairs” by philosophers. There are two kinds of states of affairs, those that are “realized” – these are the ones that are facts – and those that are not realized – these are the things that make false propositions to be false

Important distinctions

 * Right/wrong vs. good/bad: right is "what we ought to do" and good is "that property which makes an act or object desirable to the rational actor"
 * An action is right if one has an obligation to do it, and it's wrong if one has an obligation to refrain from doing it.
 * If an action is merely good, there is no necessary obligation to do it; and if an action is merely bad, there is no necessary obligation to refrain from doing it.
 * The distinction is sometimes reflected in the consequentialist perspective: the non-consequentialist believes something like "the right is prior to the good", whereas a consequentialist might believe something like "the right is the same thing as the good"
 * Distinguish between normative and prescriptive: the normative approach is what the decisionmaker would do absent all constraints (information, time)- as rational agents we should do XYZ -, while the prescriptive approach describes a feasible procedure for a decision-maker to follow - given that we are not always rational, we should ABC

What Does One Do in a PT Paper?

 * Formulate the central problem or question you wish to address at the beginning of your paper, and keep it in mind at all times. Make it clear what the problem is, and why it is a problem. Be sure that everything you write is relevant to that central problem. In addition, be sure to say in the paper how it is relevant
 * Explain your point fully; give an example; make it clear how the point helps your argument
 * The reasoned defense of some claim - your paper must offer an argument.
 * Defend your claims (xyz BECAUSE abc)
 * Put forward a thesis and arguments
 * Criticize that argument; or show that certain arguments for the thesis are no good
 * Defend the argument or thesis against someone else's criticism
 * Offer reasons to believe the thesis
 * Offer counterexamples to the thesis
 * Contrast the strengths and weaknesses of two opposing views about the thesis
 * Give examples which help explain the thesis, or which help to make the thesis more plausible
 * Argue that certain philosophers are committed to the thesis by their other views, though they do not come out and explicitly endorse the thesis
 * Discuss what consequences the thesis would have, if it were true
 * Revise the thesis, in the light of some objection
 * Be modest and make a small point!

Some useful phrases

 * Use connective words like
 * because, since, given this argument
 * thus, therefore, hence, it follows that, consequently
 * nevertheless, however, but
 * in the first case, on the other hand
 * Tell the reader what you've done so far and what you're going to do next. You can say things like:
 * I will begin by
 * Before I say what is wrong with this argument, I want to
 * These passages suggest that
 * I will now defend this claim
 * Further support for this claim comes from
 * For example
 * We've just seen how X says that P. I will now present two arguments that not‐P. My first argument is...; my second argument that not‐P is...
 * X might respond to my arguments in several ways. For instance, he could say that... However this response fails because
 * The strongest objection to Q says... However, this objection does not suc ceed, for the following reason
 * Another way that X might respond to my arguments is by claiming that... This response also fails because
 * So we have seen that none of X's replies to my argument that not‐P succeed. Hence, we should reject X's claim that P

Terms clarifications

 * In philosophical discussions, only arguments can be valid (and can't be "true"). Not points, objections, beliefs, or claims.
 * Claims, beliefs, and statements are true or false (don't call a claim "valid")
 * If someone has proven a claim (i.e. the arguments are successful), then the claim must be true
 * Only inferences and arguments can be fallacious.
 * Ambiguous: In a philosophical discussion, you should call a term "ambiguous" when and only when the expression has more than one acceptable meaning (e.g. bank)
 * Vague: Philosophers call a term "vague" when there's no sharp borderline between cases where the term applies and cases where it doesn't apply (e.g. how few hairs on your head makes you bald)
 * Fallacy: an error in one's inferences or argument
 * Falsehood: an error in the claims one makes
 * Refuting: a claim is showing it to be false - typically by producing reasons that make it clear that it's false. Until you produce reasons, you may deny, try to refute or reject the claim, but you won't have refuted it
 * Inferring: is the psychological activity of drawing conclusions from premises (only people infer; arguments imply or entail)
 * Imagine/conceive: of some possibility is to form an idea of it, to entertain that possibility in your mind (i.e. you are not committing yourself to the claim that that possibility actually obtains or is likely to obtain)
 * Proposition: is something that you could hold, or believe, or put forward as a claim. It's capable of being true or false. It's expressed in language by a complete sentence.
 * Concept: is usually expressed in language by a noun phrase, not by a sentence.
 * A fortiori; de facto, de jure; ipso facto; non sequitur (the premises do not support the conclusion); pace (despite what X says); prima facie; simpliciter (without qualification, e.g. a good man simplicter)