Re: A better way to have discussions

Posted by Excalibur on December 30, 2001 at 00:14:17:

In Reply to: A better way to have discussions posted by Bartholomew on December 28, 2001 at 20:35:35:

: This was my christmas present to my mom.

: How to Argue: A Step-by-step Practical Guide
: by Bartholomew Parkis

:
: Introduction:

: This assumes that one person has what seems to him to be a reasonable point, as well as what seems to him to be a reasonable explanation for that point.

: The purpose of argument over said point is to resolve whether the point is correct. For this purpose to be fulfilled, both the person professing the point and the person playing the devil's advocate for it must understand the point fairly well. The only way that a point can be judged incorrectly either true or false at the end of the argument is if both participants share a misconception that is integral to the point.

: There are two other possible outcomes. The first is that nothing is resolved, and each participant believes that the other is wrong.

: The previous two undesirable outcomes can only occur if the participants disagree on a sub-point at the "lowest level" of argument covered (see following text for explanation of this). The participants can disagree at this level only if (1) at least one of the participants either refuses or is intellectually unable to break that "lowest level" point down into more sub-points of a yet lower level, or if (2) the sub-point cannot be logically broken down any further, and is a matter of simple belief. In the case of (1), the only flaw is that the argument has not been taken far enough. Because of the possibility of (1), all arguments should be taken down to the lowest possible level. If (2) is the only problem with the argument, then the participants have determined exactly the cause of their disagreement, which is a step forward in itself.

: The final possible outcome is that the argument is resolved correctly. The point in question is false and it was determined to be false, or it is true and it was determined to be true. This is obviously the most desirable outcome.

:
: Procedure:

: The person with the proposed point states it, then states evidence in support of the point at a level of detail such that (1) the person proposing the point (the "proponent") believes that the critic will accept all the evidence and (2) the evidence is not at such a low level that the argument will be unnecessarily long and tedious.

: The critic may criticize the evidence at this step. The critic may not criticize the conclusion yet.

: When the critic has criticized each piece of evidence that he wishes to, the proponent may then state the first step of deduction from the evidence. If the critic has demonstrated the falseness of any of the pieces of evidence, the proponent may not use those pieces of evidence in his step of deduction.

: The critic may criticize the step of deduction. This criticism cannot directly target the sub-conclusions that the proponent just made; the criticism can only take the form, "It does not follow that...." If the critic is successful in this aim, the sub-conclusion that was just reached must be discarded.

: Once the critic has finished criticizing, the proponent may continue to the next step of deduction. This step, and the criticism of it, repeats until the proponent either gives up or reaches the conclusion. If the proponent gives up, the final judgment of the argument is that based on the evidence, the conclusion cannot be reached. This is because the initial statement of the proponent is not that the conclusion is false, but that it is possible to be reached based on the stated evidence. The critic may then make another argument that the conclusion is actually false. This argument is treated exactly as the initial one.

:
: The method of criticism:

: The critic may criticize one piece of evidence, or one logical link, at a time. Criticism of a piece of evidence must involve stating the reason why the evidence is flawed. The critic effectively creates a new argument, with the conclusion of this sub-argument being that the support for the main point in question is flawed. The critic and proponent switch roles temporarily for the duration of this sub-argument.

: If the proponent of the main point wants to criticize the critic's criticism, this is treated as a criticism in the same form as the critic's initial criticism.

: This recursion, with potentially many sub- and sub-sub-arguments, goes on as long as necessary for one person to demonstrate that the criticism is valid or invalid.

well.. i didn't exactly read all of that, but i'm sure your procedure for arguments could be used in parliament or something, but personally, in every-day life, discussions are about communication, not laws and procedures.

Ex

Follow Ups:

• I think Ex is looking at the big picture here, my dear, dear fives Diarmuid 16:58:01 12/30/01 (0)
• You NITWIT! Bartholomew 02:11:41 12/30/01 (7)
  • Re: You NITWIT! P 09:11:22 12/31/01 (0)
  • Re: You NITWIT! Primer Gray 12:25:09 12/30/01 (0)
  • Re: You NITWIT! Mikko 11:32:08 12/30/01 (0)
  • Re: You NITWIT! pork 10:23:07 12/30/01 (0)
  • why the abuse? Excalibur 04:29:45 12/30/01 (0)
  • Yah, Ex, what were you thinking?!?!... Emily 02:53:11 12/30/01 (1)
    • Re: Sounds like a 'nitpicking twit' INTJ to me. P 09:10:28 12/31/01 (0)

Post a Followup