This document outlines criteria for evaluating philosophical arguments, claims, and theories: 1. When evaluating an argument, consider whether the philosopher provides good reasons to support their conclusion, rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusion. 2. An argument may be weak without proving the conclusion false - weak arguments do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. 3. Philosophical evaluations should consider clarity, consistency, coherence, and comprehensiveness of concepts, logical contradictions, fit of elements, and breadth of phenomena explained.

1. Evaluating philosophical
arguments, claims and theories.

2. Philosophy is the search for fundamental
beliefs that are justified….
Therefore.. Try to avoid ‘bottom line syndrome’.
When you read an argument advanced by a philosopher, avoid simply agreeing
or disagreeing with the author’s conclusion without paying attention to
whether the philosopher has provided good reasons in support of their
conclusion.
If you do this, then your evaluation is missing the point. For example-
someone who believes in God (a theist) would agree with the conclusion of
Thomas Aquinas’s arguments (i.e.“There is a God”). But some theists do not
think that Aquinas’s arguments are strong.

3. Weak vs. True
When we demonstrate that an argument is weak we do not necessarily prove
that the conclusion is false. We have merely shown that the reasons the
author has given for the conclusion do not guarantee its truth. Remembering
that not all philosophical claims and theories use deductive reasoning.
Nevertheless, if the arguments are overwhelmingly weak, we really have no
reason to suppose that the conclusion is true, but it could be valid- in terms of
the way the principles of logic have been used.
As students of philosophy you need to attempt to find objective reasons why
we should or should not believe that a claim is true. Remember to

4. The Four C’s- Clarity
Conceptual clarity is the first test that a philosophy must pass.
If the terms or concepts in which the philosophy is expressed are not clear,
then we do not know precisely what claim is being put forth. What are the
terms which are used? Are they clear? What is meant by perfection?
Ambiguity of terms can mean that an arguments lacks clarity.

5. The Four C’s- Consistency
Consistency is the second test that a philosophy must pass. A philosophy
cannot contain any contradictions. One way a philosophy fails this test is
through logical inconsistency, which consists of making two assertions that
could not both be true under any possible circumstances.
For example, if I claim that God determines everything that happens in the
world at the same time that I claim that humans have free will, I appear to
have an inconsistency. The first claim implies that God determines what
choices we make, but this claim seems to conflict with the claim that we freely
make our own choices.

6. The Four C’s- Consistency continued
A second kind of inconsistency is more subtle. It is called self- referential
inconsistency, and it occurs if an assertion implies that it itself cannot be true,
or cannot be known to be true, or should not be believed.
For example- “Only statements that can be scientifically proven should be
believed” is a statement that cannot be scientifically proven.

7. The Four C’s- Coherence
Rational coherence is a criterion that considers how well the various parts of a
philosophy come together. The elements of a philosophy may not be explicitly
contradictory, but they can still fail to fit together very well.
A philosopher who believes that God acts in the world but who fails to explain
how that belief fits together with the belief that nature run according to
universal physical laws has articulated a philosophy that lacks coherence.

8. The Three C’s- Comprehensiveness
We evaluate a philosophy positively if it makes sense out of a wide range of
phenomena; we evaluate it negatively if it ignores significant areas of human
experience or raises more questions than it answers.
For example- A philosopher who claims that all morality is derived from the
Ten Commandments but who fails to explain how some cultures have
developed similar moral principles even if they never heard of these
commandments fails in terms of comprehensiveness.

9. Persuasiveness
After using the 4 C’s, you need to decide how persuasive a philosophical
argument/claim/ theory is. These signposts can help structure your response.
These passages suggest…I will now defend the claim…Further support for this
claim comes from…The strongest objection to this point is…However; the
objection does not succeed because…There are three reasons to believe point
X. Firstly….Use connective words such as: because, since, given this argument,
thus, therefore, hence, it follows that, consequently, nevertheless, however or
or on the other hand.