What Is an Argument?

Post Reply New Topic

"An argument is not the same thing as a quarrel. The goal of an argument is not to attack your opponent, or to impress your audience. The goal of an argument is to offer good reasons in support of your conclusion, reasons that all parties to your dispute can accept."

http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/argument.html

Examine your Premises:

"As stated above, in order for an argument to be sound all of its premises must be true. Often, different people come to different conclusions because they are starting with different premises. So examining all the premises of each argument is a good place to start."

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resourc ... -fallacies

Formal and informal arguments:

"Informal arguments as studied in informal logic, are presented in ordinary language and are intended for everyday discourse. Conversely, formal arguments are studied in formal logic (historically called symbolic logic, more commonly referred to as mathematical logic today) and are expressed in a formal language. Informal logic may be said to emphasize the study of argumentation, whereas formal logic emphasizes implication and inference. Informal arguments are sometimes implicit. That is, the rational structure –the relationship of claims, premises, warrants, relations of implication, and conclusion –is not always spelled out and immediately visible and must sometimes be made explicit by analysis."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

Eristic:

"In philosophy and rhetoric, eristic (from Eris, the ancient Greek goddess of chaos, strife, and discord) refers to argument that aims to successfully dispute another's argument, rather than searching for truth. According to T.H. Irwin, "It is characteristic of the eristic to think of some arguments as way of defeating the other side, by showing that an opponent must assent to the negation of what he initially took himself to believe."[1] Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict, as opposed to resolving conflict.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic

Informal Logic:

" Informal logic operates in the much less solid ground of everyday public
discourse. Informal logic deals with analyzing the grounds or reasons for
conclusions. It looks at how well reasons support, justify, establish or
demonstrate in some way, the conclusion. This typically involves questions
of degree, probability, plausibility and persuasiveness. Informal logic deals
with inductive reasoning. An inductive argument is one that involves reasoning
from particulars to the general, and in which the premises provide some degree
of support for the conclusion. "

http://eserver.org/courses/spring2000/76101c/logic.html

It is NOT!! !! !

(just kidding. Someone should post the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch here.).

It never ceases to amaze me how people jump into a conversation without determining the premises/context involved.
I used to think aspies tended to analysis what is being said more so than neurotypicals.
This seems to be a false and disappointing assumption based on experience...
I guess I'm special in this way...

My mild frustration was the motivator for this post, btw...lol

Cheers m8...

This is an argument.

Noit isn't...

That was an argument too.

It would probably be best to give a good example of an argument to demonstrate some of these principles:

P1:Luke is a man.
P2:All men are mortal.
C:Ergo, luke is mortal.

That is an argument called a syllogism. There are only two premises, and one conclusion. The conclusion in this case necessarily follows from the premises because they supply a material cause. This was Aristotle's favorite kind of argument because based upon them we could form conclusions that are an axiomatic foundation for further discussion. While not all arguments fall along these necessary lines, and not all of them exist entirely without smuggled premises, these provide a good grounding for discussion as they help to provide what is called a universe of discourse.

This kind of argument is very much the opposite of an eristic argument. Eristic arguments are typically predicated on sophistical thinking, and as such they accomplish nothing but a success in rhetoric, not logic. While eristic arguments can seem perfectly rational, they are not logical/valid. Logic pertains to the formation of thoughts and the validity of those forms, not necessarily to the truth behind any particular argument. The basic function of logic is to validate and differentiate between inferences, which can be deductive or inductive. Formal logic is grounded in concrete, absolute inferences. Informal logic on the other hand deals in varying levels of certainty. In the first type we can definitely say yes or no to the validity of an argument, and in the second type we can assess varying levels of validity.

Rationality, on the other hand, is an indication of how well logical thoughts pertain to reality, and so long as two opposing arguments have valid form they can both hypothetically be rational. One might say that we cannot have a round square, but rationality isn't so much a Cartesian proof as it is an indication of however much or little we think a thought corresponds with reality. It may have been perfectly rational at one point to believe the earth was flat, for example, until our understanding of applied math, and some principles that were precursors to empiricism, made the position untenable. So as we can see rationality takes into account values like probability, coherence, formal and informal validity, and to put it bluntly and more succinctly an argument's generally ability to be compelling. This is why philosophers and thinkers of many other stripes should be able to recognize rationality in one another, instead of fooling themselves that they are the only party that can be possibly rational. The assessment that an argument is rational is not so much a categorical, yes or no, assessment so much as it actually gauges just how much rationality it has or lacks.

As Aristotle said: "The mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it." In order to truly entertain an idea we must give it the benefit of the doubt that it is rational. Unless we are predisposed to do that there is no progress that can be made and we are simply pontificating at one another. That is argument in the popular sense.

The universe of discourse is the accepted grounds for discussion that help to mark the boundaries of discussion. When it is well established the interlocutors, aka participants, are able to accomplish more during discussion because they don't have to trail off into unproductive areas and they can work towards a specific goal. They can already agree before the discussion starts upon what are called axioms. While some debates are held over what can be truly called axiomatic to any discussion, in most other instances axioms are conditional conclusions agreed upon between parties that can both agree to them and not agree to them, all the while still accepting them in order to produce a good debate.

Why might we discuss something with someone else if we don't agree with one of the underpinning axioms? Well, we can entertain such a thought by hypothetically allowing it, and this is done in order to engage our interlocutors at a different specific stage in their epistemology (i.e. sequences of reasons for an ultimate conclusion or set of conclusions). In an environment moderated by such rules, physicists for example can accept empiricism as an axiom, and in so doing work towards astounding accomplishments like discovering galaxies, inventing radio waves which is probably why you have a cell phone on you right now, etc. So, it is paramount to establish the universe of discourse.

"There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance." Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

Last edited by Lukecash12 on 17 Jun 2015, 2:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

It's very difficult to persuade someone using logical arguments. Often times these logical arguments are backed up by unsubstantiated articles online or in books or whatever or surveys that are sketchily performed. Unless you have EXPERIENCED something you really don't know.

I ask you, how many times have you seen an argument in ppr where someone started out with one view and actually CHANGED it due to the logic of someone else. It is extremely rare. I am pretty forgiving in arguments and will often accept the other side has a valid point. On the other hand, sometimes I get angry and defensive for no reason. Emotion is very important in arguments. It's not all about logic. Emotion and logic work together to create a point. Sometimes people like your point. Other times they think you are a complete idiot. Just the way it goes.

We can argue logic axioms all day long but what you get when you do this is a series of refutations that goes on and on and on and on because no one can actually prove something 100% certain. So issues that are very important never get resolved.

That is because we are discussing these issues in an environment that is often bereft of the self discipline, experienced philosophical moderation, and well established universe of discourse that is involved in the serious debates carried out by academics. Academics reform their thoughts all of the time.

Antony Flew, for example, was a noted atheist philosopher most of his life until he was convinced by teleological arguments to become a deist. That is a huge change, because that means he changed his thoughts on numerous positions that he held. It is not uncommon for academic thinkers to change their positions on individual issues, and some of them even switch from one categorical designation like atheist, which involves many underpinning arguments, to another designation like deist.

What you are observing for the most part is the lack of discipline and rigorous methodology, that is prevalent in discussions on these subjects between individuals who are not as familiar with the proper academic environment that most professors are exposed to, or at least should be exposed to given their chosen discipline. That is how more disciplined minds make the progress necessary to invent things like satellites, while the rest of us simply blow hot air in order to express our opinions.

It takes great self discipline and humility to come to the conclusion that you are at fault. This is a very necessary quality for professional academics and I actually find myself disappointed by those academics who don't change any of their positions. If there weren't any people with the ability to do this we would still believe in a flat earth. We would still be using the surgical procedures of Galen and Hippocrates. The Rennaissance would never have occurred.

I sort of agree, sort of don't. There are some issues that are so emotionally charged that the emotion is more important than the logic. A person can be very intelligent and fall for very obvious deceptive tactics. It's very difficult to actually know something unless you are an expert in the field and doing these studies yourself or doing these experiments yourself. On WP, most people are just speculating based on things they have heard or seen. I do it all the time, and without shame. I always enjoy hearing anecdotal reports though of people who have had profound experiences that have changed their point of view. People escaping cults etc. But are these people trolls? No one really knows. Unless you have experienced it you don't know.

There are people who are expected to forsake emotions, as best they can, when discussing these issues and that is what they do for a living. And then there are those of us who admire their work and emulate their thinking and values as best we can, hoping at the same time that maybe we can make a contribution of our own, that we can arrive at extraordinary conclusions using rational methods.

Your own contention that "unless you've experienced it you don't know" didn't appear out of thin air. It was a gift from a disciplined mind by the name of Rene Descartes, who helped to form the school of thinking called empiricism. What you have just said displays that whether or not you are aware, you subscribe to a variant of empiricism. Such ideas were not had by many people before Leibniz, Newton, Locke, Hobbes, Voltaire, or Descartes. Yet now this is a common attitude in the West, treated as if it were a foregone conclusion. Can you honestly say that you not only know why you believe that quoted statement, but you can defend that notion?

If emotion were more important than logic, there would have been no Rennaissance, Enlightenment, Romanticism, Industrialist, Modern, or Postmodern era. Illiteracy would be taken for granted. People would still be killing each other with stone axes. At every step of the way progress was made because of varying degrees of rational thinking. Someone wanted to accomplish an end so they wouldn't accept just any idea. Over time people developed criteria to discern between ideas. This is paramount because emotions don't invent railroads, telephones, vaccinations, surgical procedures, or satellites. Louis Pasteur didn't somehow magic a vaccination for polio by way of his emotions.

No, useful ideas accomplished all of that and more. And a great deal of these ideas were contributed by amateurs, not so called "experts". By "expert" I assume you mean professional, because there are quite a few amateur experts that have received recognition throughout history. Was Albert Einstein working at a university when he first submitted a proof for the existence of atoms? No, he was an amateur. Did Jacques Pierre work at a university when he came forward with the idea of a big bang? No, in fact he was a priest. Satellites were first conceived of by someone who simply tuned radios for the British army during WWII.

What you are observing is that the emotions become more important for individual people, than the logic. While that may be true, those emotions didn't determine that 2+2=4 or come up with a topical steroid ointment for my eczema. So while I can appreciate emotions, I also appreciate human progress, intellectual achievements, and most especially my steroid ointment because eczema can be painful, and I can't magic that away with my emotions.