There are good arguments & there are bad arguments, there
are valid arguments & there are stupid arguments. The good or
valid arguments lead to deeper knowledge & harmonious
agreement, while the bad or stupid arguments lead to negative
emotions & deeper disagreement.
Plato claimed truth was in the air all around us, the proof being
that two men who are ignorant of a certain knowledge can, through
correct dialogue, pluck that knowledge from the very air... the
correct discourse referred to, defines all the terms used in
their arguments. It can be tedious at times but it is surprising
how much can be learned when defining to mutual satisfaction even
the simplest of commonly used terms; how little there is left to
'argue' about, & finally, how magically the insight sprouts
from barren ignorance.
In the orient, Confucius' ideas which became such a thoroughly
pervasive influence, fought the negative confrontational aspect
of argument with a strictly defined protocol in the allowed form
of response. In a word: manners. With manners that make it
impossible to cause one's opponent to 'lose face', all negatively
charged emotional exchange is channelled instead into
communication.
In the context of learning I think Socratic argument
beats Confucian for sheer efficiency.
Personally I think Hegelian dialectics (with its roots in the pre-Socratic
Greeks) where thesis & antithesis are reconciled in a
synthesis can make for interesting dialogue but finds mutual conclusion with more difficulty; these & other thoughtful, reasonable,
approaches to argument, however, are generally ignored by most people,
indeed most arguments between friends & colleagues (not to
mention enemies), even those whose disagreement has nothing to do
with their cherished relationship, affect that relationship
negatively. The reason for this is not that most people like the
person they argue with less because of an opinion that is
different to their own, but rather because they don't know how to argue. It is this process that demeans the
friendship within which the argument plays out.
By arguing badly or stupidly, other considerations aside from the
difference of opinion being discussed enter into the feelings
they are being discussed with. Instead of being interested in
each other's point of view & continuing to exhibit the
respect each combatant has for the other (often a pre-requisite
to the eventual heat the argument generates, not the opinion)
they 'argue' through repetition & emphasis of their own
standpoint while repeating with ever-greater force that the
other person's perspective is wrong.
Personally, though I am not immune to the sting of pride: to the
'bad' feeling that something I believed in & argued for,
turns out to be wrong, but that petty feeling is overwhelmed by the
pleasure (when convinced by good argument that I am wrong) in
having a new & better truth to believe in & argue for.
Replacing the faulty truth with a new one means I won't be seen
as wrong again in the future, as a point of pride that alone is
reason to be grateful to the man who convinces me, through
argument, of a fallacious belief.
Professor Beebe, PhD in philosophy, explains the simple rules of
'good' argument:
An argument is= a set of statements that include
just two components-
a) A conclusion, which is the main point the argument is trying
to establish.
b) The premises, which are reasons given in support of the
conclusion.
There are two main requirements an argument must satisfy
if it is going to qualify as a good argument:
1) The premises must be true.
2) The premises must support the conclusion.
One must be careful here because though the statement is simple
the possible variations for the purposes of manipulating the
logic of the argument (in order to confuse & mislead) are
subtle & diverse. To start with it must be re-iterated
that,
1- though the list of premises may be true, the conclusion drawn
from them may not. (For various reasons we will examine)
2- though the list of premises may be false, the conclusion may
still be true.
Professor Beebe points out some common forms of fallacious
argument: (parenthetic examples & comments are mine)
A) Appeal to Inappropriate Authority = fallacy
committed when a conclusion in one area of human inquiry is
supported by appealing to the authority of someone whose
authority or expertise lies in an independent and unrelated area
of human inquiry.
B) False Dilemma = fallacy committed when:
(i) a decision is portrayed as being a choice between two (or
more) options;
(ii) all but one of the options presented is obviously bad;
but
(iii) there are, in fact, more options than are
represented.
(A man giving a speech to a gathering about zoning a section of
forest as protected habitat might say: Would you like to see this
beautiful forest turned into a strip mall & parking lot? He
hasn't said that it is the choice between his zoning suggestion
& a shopping centre but the people gathered might come away
with the impression that if they sign his petition they are
indeed choosing the better option of the two)
C) Straw Man = the fallacy of attacking a
position that one's opponent does not really hold and thinking
that one has thereby attacked the opponent's position.
(When used well the opponent in question can sometimes even be
induced to defend the irrelevant position thereby validating the
criticism.)
D) Slippery Slope = fallacy committed
when:
(i) someone argues against a certain proposal by claiming that it
will set off a chain reaction that will ultimately end in
disaster; but
(ii) there is no good reason to believe that such a chain
reaction will (or is likely to) occur.
(That because hard drug users generally smoke, or have smoked,
marijuana, smoking marijuana inevitably leads to hard drug use.
That because violence on television is desensitising, kids who
watch Popeye cartoons will exhibit violent behaviour)
E) Ad Hominem (latin- against the person) =
fallacy committed when someone erroneously attacks the person
giving an argument rather than the argument itself.
(A nutrition expert might have his statement about nutrition
attacked because he is overweight. The connection might seem
superficially accurate in an intuitive way, when in fact there
may be many reasons aside from ignorance of the subject that
causes him to be overweight. It might even be a reason the critic
does not recognise though logically he should be able to accept
it, such as that the nutrition expert feels he is more attractive
when overweight & works hard to keep from losing those
kilos.)
F) False Cause = fallacy committed when someone
concludes that one event is caused by another simply because the
one event follows the other.
(Every time I forget my umbrella it rains!)
Ivan said...
-
I certainly enjoyed this brilliant essay on How to Argue. I might, however, debate only the last line. For me, it never rains when I do carry my umbrella.
I appreciated your description of valid and stupid arguments. I thought of a third category of argument I am often guilty of engaging in, and wanted your opinion:
It is the argument we engage when we want to know the thoughts of the person we're debating with better... really a form of play where we try to expand on each others concepts.
Have you read a wonderful little book titled Finite and Infinite Games, by James P Carse? It's subtitled A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility. He describes a finite game as one that will end when some one wins, while an infinite game is played without rules, boundaries or even winners, so as to involve an ever-expanding number of players.
I like that concept and thought perhaps, that is what you were thinking when you started this delightful blog. Bravo - 10:23 PM