sanchopanza
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2003
- Posts
- 433
I've been thinking about arguing lately. I used to think that maybe if you just show use of logic and valid arguements and the other person will see sense. Boy was I wrong. So this post in not a rant on how pissed off I get when people argue in circles but instead just a list a la Thouless of dishonest tricks used in arguements.
Situations in which cold, unemotional thinking is needed generally involve whenever you discuss controversial topics.
1. The use of emotionally toned words.
2. Making a statement in which 'all' is implied but 'some' is true.
3. Proof by selected instance.
4. Extension of an opponent's proposition by contradiction or misrepresentation of it.
5. Evasion of a sound refutation of an arguement by the use of a sophistical formula.
6. Diversion to another question, to a side issue, or by irrelevant objection.
7. Proof by inconsequent arguement.
8. The arguement that we should not make efforts against X which is admittedly evil because there is a worse evil Y against which our efforts should be directed.
9. The recommendation of a position because it is a mean between two extremes.
10. Pointing out the logical correctness of the form of an argument whose premisses contain doubtful or untrue statements of fact.
11. The use of an argument of logically unsound form.
12. Argument in a circle.
13. Begging the question.
14. Discussing a verbal proposition as if it were a factual one, or failing to disentangle the verbal and factual elements in a proposition that is partly both.
15. Putting forward a tautology (such as that too much of the thing attacked is bad) as if it were a factual judgement.
16. The use of speculative argument.
17. Change in the meaning of a term during the course of an argument.
18. The use of a dilemma which ignores a continuous series of possibilities between the two extremes presented.
19. The use of the fact of continuity between them to throw doubt on the real difference between two things (the 'argument of the beard').
20. Illegitimate use of or demand for definition.
21. Suggestion by repeated affirmation.
22. Suggestion by use of a confident manner.
23. Suggestion by prestige.
24. Prestige by false credentials.
25. Prestige by use of pseudo-technical jargon.
26. Affectation of failure to understand backed by prestige.
27. The use of questions drawing out damaging admissions.
28. The appeal to mere authority.
29. Overcoming resistance to a doubtful proposition by a preliminary statement of a few easily accepted ones.
30. Statement of a doubtful proposition in such a way that it fits in with the thought-habits or the prejudices of the hearer.
31. The use of generally accepted formulae of predigested thought as premisses in argument.
32. 'There is much to be said on both sides, so no decision can be made either way', or any other formula leading to the attitude of academic detachment.
33. Argument by mere analogy.
34. Argument by forced analogy.
35. Angering an opponent in order that he may argue badly.
36. Special pleading.
37. Commending or condemning a proposition because of its practical consequences to the hearer.
38. Argument by attributing prejudices or motives to one's opponent.
and a few of my own:
attachment of emotion to an argument - in order to gain support for an argument the person arguing their case may attach emotion to it and try to win through wholly subjective reasoning
personal attacks, such as the way you dress or talk and trying to undermine the opponent by pointing out personal flaws, also this can refer to the idea that the opponent is ill-equipped to argue their own case and so should concede defeat to the more knowledgeable
failure to separate the person from the arguement. the person is the argument syndrome.
taking part of the argument out of context and then basing the rebuttal to the argument upon that premise.
Situations in which cold, unemotional thinking is needed generally involve whenever you discuss controversial topics.
1. The use of emotionally toned words.
2. Making a statement in which 'all' is implied but 'some' is true.
3. Proof by selected instance.
4. Extension of an opponent's proposition by contradiction or misrepresentation of it.
5. Evasion of a sound refutation of an arguement by the use of a sophistical formula.
6. Diversion to another question, to a side issue, or by irrelevant objection.
7. Proof by inconsequent arguement.
8. The arguement that we should not make efforts against X which is admittedly evil because there is a worse evil Y against which our efforts should be directed.
9. The recommendation of a position because it is a mean between two extremes.
10. Pointing out the logical correctness of the form of an argument whose premisses contain doubtful or untrue statements of fact.
11. The use of an argument of logically unsound form.
12. Argument in a circle.
13. Begging the question.
14. Discussing a verbal proposition as if it were a factual one, or failing to disentangle the verbal and factual elements in a proposition that is partly both.
15. Putting forward a tautology (such as that too much of the thing attacked is bad) as if it were a factual judgement.
16. The use of speculative argument.
17. Change in the meaning of a term during the course of an argument.
18. The use of a dilemma which ignores a continuous series of possibilities between the two extremes presented.
19. The use of the fact of continuity between them to throw doubt on the real difference between two things (the 'argument of the beard').
20. Illegitimate use of or demand for definition.
21. Suggestion by repeated affirmation.
22. Suggestion by use of a confident manner.
23. Suggestion by prestige.
24. Prestige by false credentials.
25. Prestige by use of pseudo-technical jargon.
26. Affectation of failure to understand backed by prestige.
27. The use of questions drawing out damaging admissions.
28. The appeal to mere authority.
29. Overcoming resistance to a doubtful proposition by a preliminary statement of a few easily accepted ones.
30. Statement of a doubtful proposition in such a way that it fits in with the thought-habits or the prejudices of the hearer.
31. The use of generally accepted formulae of predigested thought as premisses in argument.
32. 'There is much to be said on both sides, so no decision can be made either way', or any other formula leading to the attitude of academic detachment.
33. Argument by mere analogy.
34. Argument by forced analogy.
35. Angering an opponent in order that he may argue badly.
36. Special pleading.
37. Commending or condemning a proposition because of its practical consequences to the hearer.
38. Argument by attributing prejudices or motives to one's opponent.
and a few of my own:
attachment of emotion to an argument - in order to gain support for an argument the person arguing their case may attach emotion to it and try to win through wholly subjective reasoning
personal attacks, such as the way you dress or talk and trying to undermine the opponent by pointing out personal flaws, also this can refer to the idea that the opponent is ill-equipped to argue their own case and so should concede defeat to the more knowledgeable
failure to separate the person from the arguement. the person is the argument syndrome.
taking part of the argument out of context and then basing the rebuttal to the argument upon that premise.
)
