I think that if you believe in something, you should be able to back it up through facts, not opinion. If, through debate with your peers, you discover that your belief doesn't hold the weight you thought it did, you should consider changing it. It's cowardly to present a strong emotional message about how one ought to act and then hide behind unresponsiveness in order to avoid dissenting criticism.
It seems to me that, as of late, people have forgotten how to argue. That's not to say that people don't know how to have an argument, but, as they say; I don't think that word means what you think it means. An argument, scholastically known, is a conclusion supported by premises. In other words, it's a position you're taking and the evidence you're using to back it up.
This is contrary to the colloquially understood accounts of argument widely used today. We recognize the word 'argument' to mean two opposing positions on one idea fighting over which side is correct, or more factual. Imagine two kids fighting on the playground over which has more right to the swing set. They both believe each one is right and neither will back down. One might even present support for herself by claiming she was there first, etc. A better description of this state of affairs is simple "contradiction".
A more sophisticated version of this disagreement is found in news punditry. When you watch a news channel and you see two "talking heads" debating the political issue of the moment, you're most likely watching a mature version of the two children in the schoolyard example. Both people have opinions on the issue and they are fighting for the validity of their sides. Again, most likely, just contradiction. This is not "argumentation".
If you remember a couple of posts back, I talked about knowledge and what you need to have it: a justified, true belief. This is not dissimilar from a properly formed argument. An argument is a conclusion supported by premises. In this case, the belief would be your conclusion and the real world justifications are your premises. Here's an example of a properly formed argument:
1. Mammals are hairy.
2. Cats are hairy.
3. Therefore, cats are mammals.
This is the simplest of arguments. The premises (1 & 2) setup the necessary conditions for the conclusion (3) to follow.
Now, I know what you're thinking: "What about hairless cats? Are they not mammals?" I would respond: "No! Have you seen those things?! They look disgusting! They're meowing little demon spawn." Congratulations! You may not have realized it, but you are now participating in a debate. When you made the point about hairless cats, you presented a flaw in one of the premises in my argument. That is, the assumption that all cats are hairy.
In this case, you attacked the "soundness" of my argument. This is one of two ways to criticize an argument. A "sound" argument is one where all of the premises are true. If someone presents a premise to you and you know it to be false for one reason or another, then that premise cannot be used to support the given conclusion. A "valid" argument means that, all premises being true, the conclusion must be true. In other words, if you have premises that are true, then the conclusion must be relevant and true. The following is an invalid argument:
1. Some cats are hairy.
2. Some dogs are hairy.
3. Therefore, some cats are dogs.
The premises (1 & 2) are true, but the conclusion (3) is, by definition, false. If you can't see that, then you may have wasted your time reading this and should be at home, coloring.
Many of today’s "authorities" try to pass off opinion based on emotional testimony as fact backed by objective evidence. This is the source of confusion on most topics we struggle to understand in our social lives. In the future, try to demarcate simple emotional contradiction from objectively assessable argumentation. The latter provides the best tool for us to collectively understand the world around us, our places in it, and how we should treat one another along the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment