So, here's the deal.
I'm working on figuring out how people descipher arguments. Do we analyze the parts of an argument, looking for the missing bits? Are we that technical? Or do we just sort of feel our way through - intuitively pick out the weaknesses?
What do you do? When someone presents an argument to you, maybe in a bar, maybe on a test, how do you respond? What's your thought process, your analytical approach?
Yes, I'm using you guys as my test group to understand how people deal with arguments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I may or may not know what I'm talking about...
So, in no particular order...
1. All the dots have to connect logically
2. No straw men or red herrings
3. The starting point of the argument has to be relevant to the point being made
4. Implications of the argument have to fit with the argument's expectations.
5. The argument has to be based on evidence.
6. The argument cannot be circular.
7. ...then, maybe, you might be able to convince me you have...a point.
It's my job to dissect arguments in terms of their technical bits - which is, I am convinced, why I am such a pain in the ass.
Considering how much training goes into being a lawyer, a scientist, or a politician...I have to wonder how much of argument-making is more of a trained skill, and less of an instinct.
...maybe.
Post a Comment