Close

01/16/2020

In this chapter, we examine the first three examples of analytical claims, which have been designed to prove a thesis. The main part of each paper is written as a discussion of one particular issue. A discussion is intended to help readers to see how the main part of the paper shows, in a systematic and logical fashion, how the author wants to prove his thesis. In the same way, these analytical papers illustrate how the authors’ analysis of a particular issue fits within an overall picture in which the analysis itself is seen as supporting the thesis.[10]

In this chapter, we examine the first three examples of analytical claims, which have been designed to prove a thesis. The main part of each paper is written as a discussion of one particular issue. A discussion is intended to help readers to see how the main part of the paper shows, in a systematic and logical fashion, how the author wants to prove his thesis. In the same way, these analytical papers illustrate how the authors’ analysis of a particular issue fits within an overall picture in which the analysis itself is seen as supporting the thesis.[10]
The first three examples in this chapter provide a general discussion of the nature of analytical propositions, of their nature of evidence, of the various kinds of evidence necessary for proofs, of the kinds of problems to which they may give rise, and finally of the various kinds of proof which the authors consider it useful to approach. The following section of the chapter briefly focuses on the analytical thesis in these cases and describes how the authors address each of these questions.
The first step in any analysis is to decide what to analyze. Some authors focus on the logical properties of an argument, the way that it satisfies formal properties in some sense. When a logical argument has a property, a conclusion follows from it. Another kind of analysis is descriptive in terms of the facts of the case. A second kind of analysis is inductive, using evidence in accordance with some general principle. A third kind of analysis is empirical, in terms of an observation or observation-collection (a hypothesis). Each of these approaches may be extended to a variety of logical or descriptive premises.
In some cases, however, an analysis must deal with the particular arguments one uses instead of with arguments’ logical (or metaphysical) properties. For example, an analysis of a deductive argument which uses premises that are not logically related cannot be performed by an empirical or inductive argument.
All of the authors considered here (including our own) think of themselves as logical analyticians, and that analysis is their chief function. However, these authors do not conceive of logic in an exclusively logical sense and are often quite relaxed about the distinctions that may be made between different sorts of logical rules. One of the purposes of this discussion is to show how, although logic is often thought of as a formal, or logical, discipline, its role in contemporary debates can sometimes be understood in an informal way, by reference to the “content” of the arguments, and in particular to how the different sorts of argument content fit together in a logical argument.
1. Analytical Tension
The idea behind analytical tension is twofold. First, a thesis statement provides the focus of an analytical thesis. By contrast, an analytical thesis expresses the author’s belief that he is dealing with an important idea or argument which has not been dealt with sufficiently. The thesis is meant to be more than a single argument, but must not be merely an expression of general thoughts about logic or about the nature of analysis. Indeed, analytical tensions often arise when an analytic thesis becomes the subject matter of a further argument which is in turn directed towards (or attempts to answer) its thesis. The author of an analytic thesis typically does not want to simply move on to another topic to which his thesis gives a special name.[11] So the subject matter of an analysis can appear rather indefinite. The result is what some authors regard as a “logical” or “intellectual” “