Effective Argumentation
EFFECTIVE ARGUMENTS
Argumentation at its best, in writing, and especially in academic writing, requires an approach that forgoes the appeals to emotion and rhetorical trickery that are often effective in face-to-face interactions in favour of a more systematic and sober approach that can stand up to reasoned scrutiny.
In one way, building an effective argument is like fortifying an area against unwanted intruders and in another like constructing a set of steps that slowly but surely lead your target to a set destination. The common thread in the apparently opposing metaphors here is that the rational reader, in terms of their conclusions, only goes where you want them to.
Effective arguments tend to include the following elements:
THE CLAIM
The first fundamental element of an argument is your claim. What is it that you want to argue for? This is open and differs widely depending on your field. So, your claim, for example, may be to do with the physical (scientific), the mental (psychological), the social (sociological), the aesthetic (artistic), or the metaphysical (philosophical). The type of claim you make will determine the nature and quantity of reasons and evidence necessary to support it. A narrow claim is likely to need much less support to be convincing than a broad claim. On the other hand, reasons and evidence for a broad claim may be much easier to come by.
Examples of Claims
Significance and Relevance of Claims
If the goal is to have people engage with your claim then it must be of some significance to them. There’s little point in making claims that are generally accepted or are of so little import that nobody cares that you made them.
REASONS AND EVIDENCE
When you’re sure your claim matters, then you need to go about supporting it. And the direction of support goes from reasons to evidence to sources of evidence. Reasons differ from evidence in that they may be entirely your own and stated in the abstract (for example, logical connections), whereas evidence generally comes from elsewhere and appeals to the concrete, i.e. data, statistics, verifiable facts etc. This is why reasons may require evidence to buttress them whereas evidence does not necessarily require anything to support it other than a verifiable source.
Examples
Suppose you make the following claim (taken from one of the examples in the previous section):
Systemic racism exists in the United States.
This is very broad so evidence and reasons may not be hard to find. It’s also certainly a significant claim, so it’s likely to be of importance and attract interest. Finally, it’s a politically loaded claim (the implications of it being true or not true are relevant to policy-making decisions that may benefit or disadvantage particular groups). The consequence of the last factor is that though there may be plenty of reasons and evidence available and the claim may be relevant, it is still likely to meet many objections and require strong support in order to overcome these objections.
With that in mind, suppose you provide the following reason for your claim:
Racial minority groups in the US, such as Blacks and Hispanics, are imprisoned at higher rates than Whites.
So, you’ve made progress in your argument. You’ve provided a reason. But we’re not finished yet. There are many objections that can still be made. The most obvious one is “How do you know that?”
Here is where evidence comes in. You want to demonstrate that the above is true. And you may draw evidence from primary, secondary, or tertiary sources to do this.
As should be clear from above, the most direct, most detailed, and therefore the strongest evidence is likely to come from primary sources.
With that in mind, you provide the following evidence as support for your claim:
https://www.issuelab.org/resources/695/695.pdf
This is a paper in which the researchers have gathered detailed data, particularly from Bureau of Justice statistics, on incarceration rates across the United States. It can be considered a secondary source as the researchers did not come up with the statistics themselves but gathered them from elsewhere. Considering the easily accessible and referenced primary source though, this can be considered strong evidence of the reason for your claim.
Again, progress has been made. But this is where it’s important not to consider the argument complete but to imagine possible objections to it. These objections are likely to come in two main forms: objections to your evidence and objections to your reasoning.
Objections to Evidence
Your evidence may be objected to on several grounds
Objections to the source
Readers may feel your source is unreliable, outdated, or biased.
An example of an unreliable source could be Wikipedia where information can be changed quickly and by anyone. The site does have some failsafe mechanisms to avoid high levels of misinformation, and it can provide some limited support to an argument, but it can’t be considered reliable enough for academic purposes and would certainly be challenged in that area. Blog articles and other online sources may also be considered unreliable if their authors lack relevant qualifications etc.
Sources could be challenged as being outdated if they are not recent enough relative to the pace of change in the field they deal with. The faster the knowledge of a particular area changes, the less useful older sources are. Areas such as quantum computing and biogenetics are likely to require very up-to-date sources, for example.
If your argument has political implication, as the above example does, evidence from sources considered to have some stake in one side or the other could be considered biased and therefore unacceptable. A more clearly neutral source than a blog or a newspaper could fairly be demanded.
Objections of accuracy
The evidence you provided may be questioned on its accuracy in a number of ways. You may be challenged on your presentation of a given source’s data or your interpretation of it and also on your source’s methodology in gathering this data and/or procedures for processing it even if your source is considered authentic and reliable.
Objections of sufficiency
Even if the data comes from a reliable source and is considered accurate, it may not be sufficient to support the point you want to make. Relying on one study to make a particular point may not be acceptable depending on the scope of your claim. Very often cross-referencing data from different sources may be necessary to provide adequate support. But even if you do that, if the type of evidence you are presenting is not strong enough in relation to the point you want to make, it may still not be considered sufficient.
Objections of relevance/specificity
Somewhat related to the previous point, your evidence may be questioned on its relevance to the specific claim you are making. Evidence can only count as evidence if it connects to the claim made. And the stronger the connection the better.
Objections to Reasoning
Your reasoning may be objected to on several grounds
Logical Objections
Logical objections focus on the form of reasoning, which may include logical structure and implications either within a single reason (intra-consistency) or across several reasons (inter-consistency). Logical fallacies, of which there are many (a few of the more common ones are listed here) are typical objections in this sphere.
Objections of strength
Objections of strength may focus on whether or not, despite consistency, you have enough reasons to support your claim. Very broad claims may require a large network of supporting reasons to make them compelling, whereas narrower claims may be compelling even on the basis of a single well-supported reason.
Objections of relevance
Though your reasons may be logical and plentiful enough, they may be objected to on the basis of how relevant they are to the actual claim, and if that is a possibility then you should prepare a warrant to help strengthen the connection between your reason and your claim.
THE WARRANT
The warrant is probably the part of preparing an argument that is least familiar to most people and is probably best dealt with through example.
Let’s take the claim we focused on above:
Systemic racism still exists in the United States.
The reason given (and we’ll stick to one for simplicities sake) was:
Racial minority groups in the US, such as Blacks and Hispanics, are imprisoned at higher rates than Whites.
The evidence provided showing that the above is true was taken from here:
https://www.issuelab.org/resources/695/695.pdf
That’s all fine; however, the link between the reason and the claim may be questioned. It may be accepted that there is irrefutable evidence that Blacks and Hispanics are imprisoned at higher rates than Whites, but consistently denied that this represents systemic racism.
A warrant can provide the link needed to overcome this objection (and show that the reason is warranted ).
For example:
When it comes to sentencing, Black and Hispanic convicts are treated more harshly for similar crimes than their White counterparts.
If this general principle can be established then the higher rates of imprisonment are contextualized as an instance of the racially discriminatory practice outlined.
In other words:
Potential Issues with Warrants
Warrants obviously aren’t a guarantee of a good argument and may be attacked for similar reasons as other parts of your argument. They may be considered unjustified due to a lack of evidence, ungeneralizable, or limited in some other way. Again, you may have to go through a process of buttressing your warrant against attack with more levels of reasoning and evidence in order to make it strong enough to carry your claim. And the more formal your argumentative context, the more likely the inference from general principle to specific instance in your warrant is likely to be challenged and solid evidence is more likely to be sought after (with the balance of hard evidence and reasoning required also dependent on the field in which the claim is made and the type of claim made).
SUMMARY
Putting all this together: When you go about constructing an argument, make sure you focus both on the necessary elements of the argument and the many potential objections that may be made to it in terms of its form (e.g. is it logical?) and its substance (e.g. is it well-supported?). Do not dismiss objections on the basis of what may seem obvious to you. Instead, work on the supposition that your reader will demand as much clarity as possible as to what your claim is and how you are supporting it and as much quantity and quality of support as you could reasonably be expected to give.
So when forming an argument:
Sources
College, E. (2019). LibGuides: Research Skills Tutorial: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Information Sources. Subjectguides.esc.edu. Accessed 7 Nov. 2019.
Turabian, K. (2003). Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. (7th Edition): Univ. of Chicago Press. Chicago.
Argumentation at its best, in writing, and especially in academic writing, requires an approach that forgoes the appeals to emotion and rhetorical trickery that are often effective in face-to-face interactions in favour of a more systematic and sober approach that can stand up to reasoned scrutiny.
In one way, building an effective argument is like fortifying an area against unwanted intruders and in another like constructing a set of steps that slowly but surely lead your target to a set destination. The common thread in the apparently opposing metaphors here is that the rational reader, in terms of their conclusions, only goes where you want them to.
Effective arguments tend to include the following elements:
- A Claim
- Reasons and Evidence
- A Warrant
THE CLAIM
The first fundamental element of an argument is your claim. What is it that you want to argue for? This is open and differs widely depending on your field. So, your claim, for example, may be to do with the physical (scientific), the mental (psychological), the social (sociological), the aesthetic (artistic), or the metaphysical (philosophical). The type of claim you make will determine the nature and quantity of reasons and evidence necessary to support it. A narrow claim is likely to need much less support to be convincing than a broad claim. On the other hand, reasons and evidence for a broad claim may be much easier to come by.
Examples of Claims
- Scientific (narrow): The silver-cheeked toadfish has begun to inhabit Algerian coastal waters.
- Sociological (broad): Systemic racism still exists in the United States.
- Psychological (broad): People are more likely to engage in violence when in large groups.
- Artistic (narrow): In terms of technique, The Mona Lisa is Da Vinci’s most accomplished work.
- Metaphysical (broad): The universe exists independently of our perceptions and thoughts.
Significance and Relevance of Claims
If the goal is to have people engage with your claim then it must be of some significance to them. There’s little point in making claims that are generally accepted or are of so little import that nobody cares that you made them.
REASONS AND EVIDENCE
When you’re sure your claim matters, then you need to go about supporting it. And the direction of support goes from reasons to evidence to sources of evidence. Reasons differ from evidence in that they may be entirely your own and stated in the abstract (for example, logical connections), whereas evidence generally comes from elsewhere and appeals to the concrete, i.e. data, statistics, verifiable facts etc. This is why reasons may require evidence to buttress them whereas evidence does not necessarily require anything to support it other than a verifiable source.
Examples
Suppose you make the following claim (taken from one of the examples in the previous section):
Systemic racism exists in the United States.
This is very broad so evidence and reasons may not be hard to find. It’s also certainly a significant claim, so it’s likely to be of importance and attract interest. Finally, it’s a politically loaded claim (the implications of it being true or not true are relevant to policy-making decisions that may benefit or disadvantage particular groups). The consequence of the last factor is that though there may be plenty of reasons and evidence available and the claim may be relevant, it is still likely to meet many objections and require strong support in order to overcome these objections.
With that in mind, suppose you provide the following reason for your claim:
Racial minority groups in the US, such as Blacks and Hispanics, are imprisoned at higher rates than Whites.
So, you’ve made progress in your argument. You’ve provided a reason. But we’re not finished yet. There are many objections that can still be made. The most obvious one is “How do you know that?”
Here is where evidence comes in. You want to demonstrate that the above is true. And you may draw evidence from primary, secondary, or tertiary sources to do this.
- Primary Source: Direct experimental/empirical evidence. For example, observations, photos, videos,
- data from an experiment carried out by the authors of the source etc.
- Secondary Source: Reputable commentary on the above. For example, a book that mentions experimental data gathered from other researchers.
- Tertiary Source: Summary or synthesis of data from secondary sources. For example, reference books, encyclopedias, textbooks, dictionaries etc.
As should be clear from above, the most direct, most detailed, and therefore the strongest evidence is likely to come from primary sources.
With that in mind, you provide the following evidence as support for your claim:
https://www.issuelab.org/resources/695/695.pdf
This is a paper in which the researchers have gathered detailed data, particularly from Bureau of Justice statistics, on incarceration rates across the United States. It can be considered a secondary source as the researchers did not come up with the statistics themselves but gathered them from elsewhere. Considering the easily accessible and referenced primary source though, this can be considered strong evidence of the reason for your claim.
Again, progress has been made. But this is where it’s important not to consider the argument complete but to imagine possible objections to it. These objections are likely to come in two main forms: objections to your evidence and objections to your reasoning.
Objections to Evidence
Your evidence may be objected to on several grounds
- Objections to the source
- Objections of accuracy
- Objections of sufficiency
- Objections of relevance/specificity
Objections to the source
Readers may feel your source is unreliable, outdated, or biased.
An example of an unreliable source could be Wikipedia where information can be changed quickly and by anyone. The site does have some failsafe mechanisms to avoid high levels of misinformation, and it can provide some limited support to an argument, but it can’t be considered reliable enough for academic purposes and would certainly be challenged in that area. Blog articles and other online sources may also be considered unreliable if their authors lack relevant qualifications etc.
Sources could be challenged as being outdated if they are not recent enough relative to the pace of change in the field they deal with. The faster the knowledge of a particular area changes, the less useful older sources are. Areas such as quantum computing and biogenetics are likely to require very up-to-date sources, for example.
If your argument has political implication, as the above example does, evidence from sources considered to have some stake in one side or the other could be considered biased and therefore unacceptable. A more clearly neutral source than a blog or a newspaper could fairly be demanded.
Objections of accuracy
The evidence you provided may be questioned on its accuracy in a number of ways. You may be challenged on your presentation of a given source’s data or your interpretation of it and also on your source’s methodology in gathering this data and/or procedures for processing it even if your source is considered authentic and reliable.
Objections of sufficiency
Even if the data comes from a reliable source and is considered accurate, it may not be sufficient to support the point you want to make. Relying on one study to make a particular point may not be acceptable depending on the scope of your claim. Very often cross-referencing data from different sources may be necessary to provide adequate support. But even if you do that, if the type of evidence you are presenting is not strong enough in relation to the point you want to make, it may still not be considered sufficient.
Objections of relevance/specificity
Somewhat related to the previous point, your evidence may be questioned on its relevance to the specific claim you are making. Evidence can only count as evidence if it connects to the claim made. And the stronger the connection the better.
Objections to Reasoning
Your reasoning may be objected to on several grounds
- Logical objections
- Objections of strength
- Objections of relevance
Logical Objections
Logical objections focus on the form of reasoning, which may include logical structure and implications either within a single reason (intra-consistency) or across several reasons (inter-consistency). Logical fallacies, of which there are many (a few of the more common ones are listed here) are typical objections in this sphere.
Objections of strength
Objections of strength may focus on whether or not, despite consistency, you have enough reasons to support your claim. Very broad claims may require a large network of supporting reasons to make them compelling, whereas narrower claims may be compelling even on the basis of a single well-supported reason.
Objections of relevance
Though your reasons may be logical and plentiful enough, they may be objected to on the basis of how relevant they are to the actual claim, and if that is a possibility then you should prepare a warrant to help strengthen the connection between your reason and your claim.
THE WARRANT
The warrant is probably the part of preparing an argument that is least familiar to most people and is probably best dealt with through example.
Let’s take the claim we focused on above:
Systemic racism still exists in the United States.
The reason given (and we’ll stick to one for simplicities sake) was:
Racial minority groups in the US, such as Blacks and Hispanics, are imprisoned at higher rates than Whites.
The evidence provided showing that the above is true was taken from here:
https://www.issuelab.org/resources/695/695.pdf
That’s all fine; however, the link between the reason and the claim may be questioned. It may be accepted that there is irrefutable evidence that Blacks and Hispanics are imprisoned at higher rates than Whites, but consistently denied that this represents systemic racism.
A warrant can provide the link needed to overcome this objection (and show that the reason is warranted ).
For example:
When it comes to sentencing, Black and Hispanic convicts are treated more harshly for similar crimes than their White counterparts.
If this general principle can be established then the higher rates of imprisonment are contextualized as an instance of the racially discriminatory practice outlined.
In other words:
- The warrant must be a fact (there must be racial discrimination in sentencing).
- The reason must also be a fact and an instance of the warrant (higher rates of imprisonment for Blacks and Hispanics must happen and be an example of this discrimination).
- The claim must be part of the consequence of the warrant (systemic racism must be at least partially a consequence of racial discrimination in sentencing).
Potential Issues with Warrants
Warrants obviously aren’t a guarantee of a good argument and may be attacked for similar reasons as other parts of your argument. They may be considered unjustified due to a lack of evidence, ungeneralizable, or limited in some other way. Again, you may have to go through a process of buttressing your warrant against attack with more levels of reasoning and evidence in order to make it strong enough to carry your claim. And the more formal your argumentative context, the more likely the inference from general principle to specific instance in your warrant is likely to be challenged and solid evidence is more likely to be sought after (with the balance of hard evidence and reasoning required also dependent on the field in which the claim is made and the type of claim made).
SUMMARY
Putting all this together: When you go about constructing an argument, make sure you focus both on the necessary elements of the argument and the many potential objections that may be made to it in terms of its form (e.g. is it logical?) and its substance (e.g. is it well-supported?). Do not dismiss objections on the basis of what may seem obvious to you. Instead, work on the supposition that your reader will demand as much clarity as possible as to what your claim is and how you are supporting it and as much quantity and quality of support as you could reasonably be expected to give.
So when forming an argument:
- Make a clear and significant claim which you are able to support.
- Include reasons/evidence and a warrant where necessary to back up your claim.
- Provide reliable and relevant primary and/or secondary sources.
- Take the perspective of someone doubtful of/antagonistic to your claim.
- Imagine as many objections to your claim as you can.
- Strive to meet them all using reasons, warrants, and hard evidence where possible.
Sources
College, E. (2019). LibGuides: Research Skills Tutorial: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Information Sources. Subjectguides.esc.edu. Accessed 7 Nov. 2019.
Turabian, K. (2003). Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. (7th Edition): Univ. of Chicago Press. Chicago.
Comments (83)
If the response is irrelevant, one can get caught up in a labyrinth of trying to steer someone who doesn't really understand the initial premise back on track; as for trolls, how do we get them to go back into the woodwork and stay there?
I would not cite Wikipedia in an academic article, perhaps, but it's been proven to be quite reliable for information: https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a
I certainly think it's an adequate source of information for a forum discussion, especially when you're trying to do something basic, like prove that foxes are not felines, or that Pluto is considered a dwarf planet, or that Kant was German.
Cheers bro', will pin it in resources.
Give a shot at clarifying it. If that doesn't work, ignore them because no matter how much of a failure these people are at argumentation, they are likely to still succeed in frustrating you and wasting your time (which—if they are a troll—is their main goal anyway). On here, you can always use this, temporaily or permanently, as required: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5738/ignore-list-browser-extension. And then concentrate on those who are offering sincere challenges or requests for clarification.
Thank you, oh purveyor of Bannoism and all things goatish.
thank you for that. studies have already addressed this misconception. It is not that wikipedia is perfect, but that "reputable" sources like encyclopedia Brittanica are similarly imperfect. And the wildly inaccurate additions are quickly fixed on wikipedia.
I am not sure this thread is the place for this (just say so - or ignoring me always works, haha), and I certainly like the way you have laid out arguments; however, I can't help but wonder about the word "best". Is the "best" argument the most logically/structurally sound, or the one that is most likely to convince the other side? Your post almost suggests they are the same thing, but I would struggle to accept that for most people I have met (it works for me though :grin:).
I am a bit over-literal and under-emotional so I can struggle with rhetorical appeals (hence I like the style of argument you described), but there are times where other people can be quickly convinced with, for example, an emotional appeal. Take the average person having a bad day, I can use logic and reason to show them that they are in control of their own attitude, and try to convince them to be happier. I have tried this many times, and it almost never works. But then I see other humans have success where I failed. What was their reasoning? They walked up, gave the person a big hug, and empathized. A few minutes later, the other person feels better. Every time I see it, I get mad at myself for forgetting that simple option (not that I could do it anyway, but I should be aware of the solution). I get the situation I described hardly counts as an argument, but it shows the potential power of rhetorical appeals.
Just wondering your thoughts...
Excellent. Not quite a troll-killer app, but well done nonetheless. :clap: :clap: :cool:
It is more than useful, it is bloody brilliant.
My original request can be found here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/22/currently-reading/p23
Baden - well, words fail me. He actually killed 2 birds with one stone - hmmm, perhaps rephrase that.
No avian cruelty involved.
The OP is a masterpiece in Effective Writing.
How do I know that ? Apart from the obvious joy in reading information so well structured and understandable...
Well, from following his Sources link and then some.
The leads include various handouts on writing e.g. like composing effective paragraphs. Worthwhile downloading.
Quoting Baden
https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/process/
What wowed me even more was how Baden applied the lessons learned by using a significant example.
Currently on my mind, from TPF discussion and the travelogue series 'the Americas' - racial discrimination and imprisonment.
Quoting Baden
So, thank you for this. This inspirational piece makes me come over all aspirational and smiley :cool:
The Learning Centre is a wonderful TPF resource. I wonder if it should be given a more prominent place.
Let it fly high !
:100: :sparkle:
(1) Establish your 'enemy' early (even an idealized one, if there isn't an existing one). The claim should be counterposed early on with it's opposite or competing claim, so as to -
(2) Establish the stakes of the claim: what difference does the claim make? Against the counterclaim, what would be different or what implications would follow if either one were true or untrue? If we can establish the motivations for why this claim matters, it becomes alot easier to follow lines of argumentation.
Hey thanks! It could do with a little more exemplification here and there, but I feel like it was an afternoon well-spent anyhow. It was either that or Cheetos, grits, and the ball-game with @Hanover. It's fine placed here for the moment but I'll talk to jrob about getting the article section of the site active again.
@praxis made a similar point and his use of the word "persuasion" is key. A distinction can be made here. Persuasion can primarily be judged by immediate results, and, concerning method, is highly contextual and psychological. Argumentation can primarily be judged by good general practice, and is more fixed and logical (especially in an academic context). That could be the subject of an article in itself. But I'll leave it there for now.
Oh yeah, then we'd really be cookin' with grease! :100: :party:
Yes. I hadn't heard of this before and have had to read it a few times. Still not completely sure of it.
Quoting StreetlightX
Yes. You can be your own best 'enemy'.
Quoting StreetlightX
Yes. Also, question motivations in choice of material. There can be an inclination to push own agenda by omitting contrary evidence.
https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/process/revisingargument/
A downloadable handout with 8 specific strategies for revising an argument. No.6 might be the most challenging: Look for dissonance.
Articles, Essays or Reviews.
That would be good.
A Book Review article might act as a complement to the 'Reading Groups' section.
Then again...
I disagree.
You have potentially an excellent forum for point/counterpoint, marred mostly (not entirely) by people writing essays at each other. And now you actually encourage them to lengthen and fortify these essays against all imagined objections, so that anyone who disagrees must be wrong, e.g. incapable of reading or otherwise misinformed, and the author will be in an even better position than they currently typically are to provide a 5-times-longer counter-objection... and so on.
I prefer it when it seems to be about trading ideas. As opposed to persuasion, which never happens and always defaults to posturing.
Still, whatever... but how about at least a word limit?
This comment has virtually nothing to do with what I wrote either in terms of its intention or its substance. Short enough for you?
:point: :up:
I like that. Very often a dissonant twinge can reveal a hidden premise or some other logical (or otherwise) fault or omission if we're paying proper attention. Extremely important to root these out in an academic context, whereas there is a danger of getting too granular in more informal situations.
I bring the potatoes. Street adds the gravy. :razz:
Along with raw onions & my dram, fellas, we won't starve anytime soon. :cool:
Admirable caricature of the standard defense of an essay fortified against all imagined objections, so that anyone who disagrees must be wrong.
Although they might just be suggesting looking from a different angle.
That's what I'd like to see. And it's why I prefer chat. (Actually I'd prefer conversations in person, and then via a telephone or video conferencing or something like that.) Something like a 100 or 150 word limit would be plenty. It would encourage conversations rather than people ramblingly "lecturing" at each other.
No, really. I wrote an article on argumentation, in a general academic context, by request. I put it in resources for reference purposes (also because the article site isn't active at the moment). I didn't write this as a template for an OP either in terms of length or complexity. And I am not advising people to write essays at each other in place of regular posts so that they can presume the other person is wrong and not listen to them. Re post limits: there won't be arbitrary word limits on posts here. We mod on post quality, and excessive length is just one potential consideration in judging quality. Lastly, I'm sure there are real openings for objections to the substance of the article if you want to make them. But quote me if you're going to do that.
This is the best part of the whole post.
In other words you might have to take the time to make your argument concise and detailed and have to answer difficult questions that might require that you re-work position. Calling people trolls and blocking them would the anti-thesis of the OP.
Quoting uncanni
If they are irrelevant points to your position, it should be simple to point that out and shouldn't require any leg-work at all. Use the guidelines listed in the OP. Don't be lazy. Go about showing how it is irrelevant rather committing the very first logical fallacy - the ad hominem - by calling them a troll.
I like the way @ZhouBoTong talked about the “best” argument. A successful argument gets others to see something your way. Logic seldom accomplishes that because people are not entirely rational beings. We have conflicting values and purposes. Anyway, rhetoric and logic are not mutually exclusive. They can be used in tandem.
In one way, yes. On the other hand, I may get successfully and most directly from A to B by motoring down the wrong side of the road. But it would be a stretch, to say the least, to call that good driving. That's the angle I'm coming from.
The thing about argumentative writing aimed at an intelligent audience is that any rhetorical trickery will be discovered sooner or later and your ideas dismissed because of it. That's not what you want if you want to be taken seriously. But I agree 100% that rhetoric and its devices have a legitimate place in discourse.
This seems to assume that rhetoric is inherently irrational.
No one has ever accused me of being intellectually lazy, and I do know the difference between a troll and other silliness or just plain lack of intellectual sophistication. You might want to lose the supercilious and flawed conclusions you jump to. You don't know me at all, so avoid the logical fallacy the slippery slope before you really know what you're talking about.
No, it doesn't. It refers to getting-others-to-see-your-way-by-any-means signalling what makes a good argument vs. following-particular-structures-and-guidelines signalling a good argument.
Rhetoric isn't inherently irrational, but (in this age) it's seen as inherently tricky, universally disliked by those aware of it, seen as a way to fire up the ignorant masses, and unlikely to be appreciated here, I'd say.
The bolded portion above is a mischaracterization. 'By-any-means' could be the use of logical fallacies, for instance. I haven't thought it through but I don't believe that rhetoric depends on invalid reasoning.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Quoting praxis
Obviously, logical fallacies could be a part of that. Persuasion in general doesn't have structural limits (though rhetoric includes many well-known devices). Zhou spelled out the distinction very clearly and I simply repeated it.
*Which certainly can and often does include invalid reasonIng.
**Which is itself a logical fallacy.
The OP is about the former.
I'm more interested in the latter, and hence find myself in agreement with
There's a difference between reporting philosophy and doing philosophy.
One advantage of long form responses over point by point is that long form responses seem to stay on topic more regularly than short form ones. I think it takes a remarkable coincidence for two people to point-counterpoint ( or any short reactive comment to reactive comment ) for a long period of time and stay on topic; this is because the interlocutors, when engaging in that style exclusively, have not put enough effort into articulating their interpretations to triangulate upon their substantive disagreement.
There can be a very frustrating dynamic, for both people, when the posting styles mismatch. A long form commenter might get frustrated that the counterpoints are irrelevant, a short form commenter might get frustrated that they have to read so much irrelevant waffle.
How one should go about doing philosophy in general is a different topic. Maybe write an article on it. I'll give you three lines.
Look at how words are being used, and find a way to make them coherent.
Yes, so many variables though. I see you and @StreetlightX do some great long posts, which I think are very useful. And I often find myself admiring @Banno's short and punchy style too. It's very contextual. Quality comes in all shapes and sizes.
Though not so much in the last few minutes or so.
Quoting Banno
Easy if you know how, Maestro.
That is one thing I miss, the formal structured debates and commentary discussions. Along with the short story competition and guest speakers. Need to get in gear and get something done about all that.
:up:
Invalid reasoning could be part of any argument. In fact, unless I'm mistaken (I'm in over my head as it is), a formal logical argument can only be valid or invalid, and likewise any counter-argument, so in the most formal logical debate, at least one side uses invalid reasoning.
In my case, fat and hairy.
Not sure what your point is now. Can you refresh me on what your primary claim is concerning what I wrote? If it's that, re argumentation, an instrumental focus is "better" than a focus on inherent quality, that's fine. But I'm still not clear why you think that or if there's anything worth arguing over that's relevant to the substance of my post.
I have read it again. This time I paid more attention to the examples you provided regarding Objections to Evidence and Reasoning. From the latter:
Quoting Baden
This included a link which I missed first time round; it leads to an excellent source:
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/
A list of 15 logical informal fallacies well presented with relevant examples, including vids and a short quiz to check understanding.
I intend to better know and develop my skills in spotting flawed reasoning and rhetorical errors. Even more important to me than winning an online argument is to get my thoughts out there for examination and exploration. That takes dialogue... a bit of chat...all kinds of everything. Perhaps even effective reading, reflecting and writing ?
I tend to laziness...
The thought of writing an article in an afternoon...it would take me months, even if.
However, I guess if you've already done the research and have the sources and information ready, then it's a walk in the park.
Thanks again for all hard work :smile:
Right. So, if you managed to write an article in an afternoon this should be easy-peasy.
Just make it so :cool:
1. I had a look at the Debate section. There's probably a reason why formal debate doesn't work so well online. However, it would hold a fascination - depending on the who and what.
2. What is a 'commentary discussion' ?
3. I remember talking about that before - about a year ago ?
4. Who did you have as a guest speaker ? How did that work - like an interview ?
Quoting Banno
Just found the Who and What of a formal debate :wink:
Now, the next question: How ?
Posting styles aren't always fixed to either extreme.
The same person can use a different voice or text depending on interest and context.
Frustration can arise if there is a lack of attention. There can be various reasons for this; some complain of having attention deficit disorder. Or they are slow readers.
So, if we want to catch and hold some participants we can K.I.S.S.
I like one of your favourite quotations:
'Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)' - Grice
In some cases, short pieces work well and can more easily be understood - other times 'Keeping It Short and Simple' is not so Sweet. Some dismiss such as cryptic one-liners. However, a questioning mind might relish the challenge.
We can all learn when someone points out e.g. our tendency to waffle or to make excessive use of quotes. Paraphrasing is another skill I need to develop...
Mismatch is fine. It would be helluva boring if we were all the same, all of the time.
However, a bit of tolerance wouldn't go amiss. Neither would a bit of patience and practice at careful, quality thinking, listening and writing.
This conversation has been a great exercise in collaboration, so far...
Would it help to have people suggest who they would like to listen to ?
If you couldn't get hold of a guest speaker who would wish to be here, then how about discussing a previous online interview ?
For example, I am reading 'So You've Been Publicly Shamed' by Jon Ronson *
I know little of him, apart from another book of his: 'The Psychopath Test'.
However, it seems he has a strong online presence:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Ronson
https://www.c-span.org/video/?325619-1/depth-jon-ronson
* He examines how the internet can gang up on individuals e.g. using Twitter to shame and victimise, whether one is deserving of it, or not. How one image, joke, thoughtless comment can ruin lives.
Ronson does this via case studies - following and interviewing people who have created outrage.
There is a chapter about his own experience of being publicly shamed.
I wonder what he makes of the current Brexit crisis, the image of the Lying Tory, who apparently feels no shame but does make apologies e.g. Grenfell:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/05/too-late-rees-mogg-faces-furious-backlash-over-grenfell-apology-stormzy
I only meant to point out the value of rhetoric in argumentation, and that it doesn’t necessarily consist of invalid reasoning (traveling on the wrong side of the road or whatever).
I didn’t mean to diminish the value of your post. Clearly even advanced members find it beneficial. It’s well written and quite thorough. Well done. :clap:
Really good post, Baden! We need more instructive posts like this as a good model. I do have one objection though when applying it to philosophical musings and arguments. This style of essay (which is basically an elaborated expository essay which tries to explain using points of data that can be obtained in empirical research) relies heavily on the "evidence" portion which at its base is academically researched empirical studies (experiments, observations, statistics, studies, etc.). A lot of philosophical ideas are a priori, and aren't amenable to this form of empirical evidence. It is purely relying on axiomatic ideas, first principles, value, etc. Indeed some of this can be gathered from sociological/psychological studies if one is trying to prove a specific application in those realms, but other ideas are not so amenable (inherently) to empirical studies. Whether mental states are ultimately primary, for example, can be informed by neuroscience and psychology, but ultimately that evidence would still be a category error if applied to metaphysical claims (i.e. the Hard Problem of Consciousness) as opposed to verification claims based on scientific methodology.
Thus, sometimes the "evidence" portion in philosophical debates is really just more detailed reasoning.
Ok, got it. We don't really disagree then.
Good points. :up:
Workin' on it.
Quoting Amity
They seemed to create more excitement and work better at the old site. The commentary discussion was where posters commented on how the debate was going. We could have that and a poll on who's winning maybe to create more interest.
Quoting Amity
I've officially started the ball rolling on that now. Provided it's agreed, I'll go ahead an organize one for the end of this year.
Quoting Amity
Two big names were Searle and Chalmers. We picked people to start discussions based on questions and the idea was they would answer those questions and maybe some follow-ups. It usually worked fairly well as far as I remember though we didn't always get as much participation as we would have liked.
You are more than welcome. But If you want to see some real hard work, check out, for example, this: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4023/marxs-value-theory/p1
You also get screeds, soapboxing, 'big picture' stuff that doesn't really amount to anything concrete, etc. It's impossible to get people to say something coherent and substantive when they have free rein.
Funny, I've had a little professional cross-over with philosophers (plus what I've heard in public lectures and seminars on YouTube) and what I've found to be the case is the exact opposite. Maybe we move in different circles.
I've found debate among professional philosophers to be mostly open, accepting of the fact that no concrete or substantive things can really be said, and that most alternatives have their merits to at least some extent.
The idea that, for example, some notion is incoherent, or nonsense, or just plain wrong in an objective sense seems pretty much limited to forums like this, and further, to people with some basic knowledge on a subject annoyed that their 'superior grasp' of it is not being given what they consider to be due respect.
Yes, indeed. Real Hard Work. @fdrake must have felt a real sense of achievement.
Hope y'all had a sparkling party :party:
Many Congrats to All the Team and Long May The Forum Prosper :sparkle:
Thanks for answering all my questions. Best wishes :up:
Maybe? I dunno what for though. @Baden's our lord and saviour.
I'm up for eternal life and shit but can we skip the crucifixion? :chin:
The rules of logic are the same for everyone, and everyone should be expected to follow them, not just some people, when they feel like it, or when it supports their position and abandon it when it doesn't.
Quoting Isaac
If nothing concrete or substantive can be said then why say anything at all?
Some rules of logic, the rules of entailment - in particular - are dubious.
https://gawron.sdsu.edu/semantics/course_core/lectures/html/logic_lecture/node20.html
Which don't define it as dubious, so any clarification of what YOU mean by "dubious", would be helpful in understanding your claim.
Study Gettier's 1963 paper...
If that's not what Gettier meant, then Smith holds false belief, and the paper poses no issue for JTB, regardless of what the rules of entailment permit. The rules of entailment allow changing the truth conditions of Smith's belief. The rules of entailment involve the changes we're allowed to make to another's belief(Smith's in this case). It does not follow from the fact that the rules of entailment allow us to move from "I will get the job" to "The man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job" that Smith can possibly believe that someone else will get the job.
The move from "I" to "the man with ten coins in his pocket" is bridged by the thinker. In Smith's mind, if he made such moves in thought, the two share the same referent.
“SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!”
Well. Firstly, why should everyone be expected to follow the rules of logic? That seems prima facae to be an unsubstantiated claim. To what end?
Secondly, what exactly are the 'rules of logic', and how would they have been derived if only logic can derive true models?
Thirdly, how would you adjudicate in situations where two opposing positions claim to have been following the rules of logic?
But notwithstanding, the above is a distraction because I never said anything about logic at all, I was just saying that what SA identifies as incoherent and not substantive is exactly the sort of thing other people may consider coherent and substantive and that people (in my experience) actually seem more likely to resort to those accusations as a means to reject some discourse here than they do in professional circles.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Have you never read a poem?
Because if you didn't you wouldn't be coherent. No one would understand what you're saying, and you'd get a lot of questions asking you to clarify.
Quoting Isaac"Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies" would be one.
Quoting Isaac
Which one has more evidence to support their claims?
Quoting Isaac
People think the same way about gods. Where has that gotten us? Absolutely nowhere.
Science is what has enabled progress in our understanding of how human beings fit into the grand scheme of things.
Quoting Isaac
Poems don't have anything concrete or substantive to be said?
It makes sense writer not commit to strongly to their position. In a debate the purpose is to push home your point to ‘win’ the debate. In an argumentative exchange if the writer is only defending their claim then the discussion can quickly crumble.
On the other hand, if the writer marks out their position as a one of at partial suspicion and provides some inkling of how they doubt their own claim then I am much more willing to engage as all too often people cherrypick evidence that bolsters their claim and believe the mere quantity of evidence is a sufficient and solid position from which to dig in. A singular point can decimate an argument, but if the writer doesn’t even present the possibility of their view having gaps and cracks in it they tend not to take on board counter evidence unless they can either turn it on its head or counter it.
Your argument can only ever be as strong as your claim allows anyhow. But depending on how you go about defending your claim, it could be a lot weaker. That's the perspective I take. If you're sure your claim is on solid ground then give it the best support you can.
If you're unsure of your claim then you're more in discussion territory and your commitment is tentative. The point is whether or not you commit fully should depend on your assessment of the strength of your claim. And the dichotomy I'd put forward is argument vs discussion with a formal debate just being a type of argument you've fully committed to defending over the course of the debate regardless of what transpires therein.
Yes, I'd thought of the deductive, inductive, abductive stuff. Could easily be another article.