Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: seat belts and hidden premises
Message-ID: <4741@alice.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Dec-85 14:15:21 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.4741
Posted: Tue Dec 24 14:15:21 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Dec-85 01:02:56 EST
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 32

The current seat belt debate is a good example of a kind of flawed
reasoning that, for want of a better term, I will call a "hidden premise."

Consider what it really means for someone to say

	A, therefore B.

Either that person implicitly believes

	whenever A, then B

or something is missing from the argument.

If A is an explicitly stated premise, and B is the conclusion,
we can look at "whenever A, then B" as a hidden premise.

Now let's apply this to the seat belt argument.  People are saying:

	Seat belts save lives,
		therefore
	people should be required to use seat belts.

The hidden premise here is:

	Whenever an activity saves lives,
	people should be required to perform it.

Now, when the hidden premise is put this baldly, most people would
disagree with it.  Thus, the argument is actually hiding something.

What could it be?  I have my own ideas but would prefer to hear
others' thoughts before I reveal them.