My Thoughts on Reasoned Arguments

[joe1776]

I think Internet forums like this one are useful for students who want to improve on their ability to reason. With that kind of reader in mind, I'll explain the use of a "reasoned argument."

If Henry makes a "reasoned argument," he states a claim and then gives reasons to support its truth. He might also add evidence to support his reasons.

If Henry claims that "Harry and Sally's marriage will never last" but he offers no reasons to support his claim, then he hasn't made a reasoned argument. His statement is simply an unsupported claim.

If Henry claims that "Harry and Sally's marriage will never last." But he then follows with reasons to support it, he has then made a reasoned argument.

If Henry's reasons aren't obviously true, they will need evidence to be persuasive.

It's a waste of time to make arguments with reasons that would only be found persuasive by people who already agree with us. It's also a waste of time to try to change the minds of opponents who are dug into their position. So, bear in mind that: The purpose of making a reasoned argument is to persuade unbiased but doubtful minds of the truth of the claim by removing their doubt.

Smart posters interested in debate, will first make sure they understand the argument in Post One of a forum like this. That often requires asking questions before writing counter-arguments. Sometimes arguments rest on word definitions. In this forum, for example, it's a good idea to find out how the word "faith" is being defined before getting into a debate.

Forum veterans: What advice would you give to students who use this forum as a device to improve on their ability to reason in the context of debate?

 

[Revoltingest]

Forum veterans: What advice would you give to students who use this forum as a device to improve on their ability to reason in the context of debate?

1) Make facts part of a cogent argument.
Avoid just stating a fact as though it makes the argument for you.
Others might reason differently from the stated fact(s).

2) Be civil.
This might seem obvious, but it becomes less so in heated discussion.
So give it priority.

3) Be wary of generalizations.
Use qualifiers like "tends to" & "often", so that exceptions are recognized.

 

[Augustus]

Forum veterans: What advice would you give to students who use this forum as a device to improve on their ability to reason in the context of debate?

Never refer to a logical fallacy (strawman, ad hom, etc) without explaining why you believe someone is committing said fallacy. Preferably never refer to them at all as they are more likely to be an impediment to thought and reasoned discussion than an aid.

90% of claimed logical fallacies here are actually people not understanding the logical fallacy they are claiming or simply misunderstanding/misrepresenting someone's argument. The tendency to refer to fallacies is usually inversely proportional to the poster's ability to use them correctly.

3) Be wary of generalizations.
Use qualifiers like "tends to" & "often", so that exceptions are recognized.

This also applies to people reading arguments. Pay attention to qualifiers which have been used for a reason.

 

[Sunstone]

@joe1776, good, solid OP. I would only go a bit further than you about backing up an argument with empirical evidence. I'd emphasize how that's probably the best way to persuade those who can be fairly persuaded.

I seldom mention in my posts and OPs the evidence on which I base my conclusions, but that's because - despite any appearances to the contrary -- I'm largely out of the sales business these days. That is, I've mostly given up on trying change anyone's views. It's not because I think empirical evidence is of no value in persuading people. Just the opposite. It's key.

 

[David T]

1) Make facts part of a cogent argument.
Avoid just stating a fact as though it makes the argument for you.
Others might reason differently from the stated fact(s).

2) Be civil.
This might seem obvious, but it becomes less so in heated discussion.
So give it priority.

3) Be wary of generalizations.
Use qualifiers like "tends to" & "often", so that exceptions are recognized.

That all seems reasoned but this is religious forums as such all the above should apply but I fact never applies inside church. Now the argument could be made this is not church. Really?

Besides even in science all the above should apply but often does not as well.therefore I suggest changing the forum to the discussion of variables of concrete. I am forming a curved wall right now it seems like a reasoned thing to do. It's what I am doing right at the moment. If the forum bends to my will then the world is perfect. Damn it!! !

Btw wb I constanTly threw you under the bus while you were gone. Heretic.

 

[Augustus]

That is, I've mostly given up on trying change anyone's views. It's not because I think empirical evidence is of no value in persuading people. Just the opposite. It's key.

Empirical evidence is not very good for persuading people regarding anything that they actually care much about and is often counterproductive.

There is empirical evidence for this

 

[Revoltingest]

Btw wb I constanTly threw you under the bus while you were gone. Heretic.

It's comforting to be remembered.

 

[joe1776]

...I've mostly given up on trying change anyone's views. It's not because I think empirical evidence is of no value in persuading people. Just the opposite. It's key.

I try to remember to imagine a group of unbiased, intelligent lurkers reading my posts who need to be persuaded. If I can remember to do it, it's like arguing in a formal debate with judges. It keeps me from blathering.

 

[Revoltingest]

I try to remember to imagine a group of unbiased, intelligent lurkers reading my posts. If I can remember to do it, it's like arguing in a formal debate with judges. It keeps me from blathering nonsense.

People do at times change their opinions & sympathies.
I have enuf success that it's encouraging.
It also helps to not expect agreement.
But I do expect interesting conversation, & I'm rewarded regularly, eg, this thread.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

.....
Forum veterans: What advice would you give to students who use this forum as a device to improve on their ability to reason in the context of debate?

Try to guide the reader through evidence that you present. I.e. Don’t slap up a 30 page research paper or newspaper article without summarizing it, and/or quoting a particular point in the article that you wish to draw their attention to. Nobdy will read a wall of text.

 

[Quintessence]

It's a waste of time to make arguments with reasons that would only be found persuasive by people who already agree with us. It's also a waste of time to try to change the minds of opponents who are dug into their position. So, bear in mind that: The purpose of making a reasoned argument is to persuade unbiased but doubtful minds of the truth of the claim by removing their doubt.

I don't agree. For me, the purpose of demonstrating reasoning is to help people understand a perspective or communicate successfully, not to convince them that one perspective is right and some other perspective is wrong. The ability to reason and present one's reason need not be connected to chest beating competitions. IMHO, framing reasoning and logic to be about getting one up on the other guy is quite problematic. I'll often bow out of discussions when I get the sense that someone wants to "win" rather than listen.

You later touch upon the importance of asking questions, and that's definitely a good one to raise. In the context of presenting reasoning to understand rather than convince, asking clarifying questions (aka, practicing active listening) is crucial. It lets the listener know you're paying attention to them and value their thoughts, while also ensuring you are understanding what they intend correctly. Many conversations break down when this isn't practiced, especially when the purpose is "winning" rather than mutual understanding.

What advice would you give to students who use this forum as a device to improve on their ability to reason in the context of debate?

Don't try to win. Winning isn't (and shouldn't) be the point. Aim to listen and understand.

My original signature on this forum used to be something to that effect. It still has that overall tone.

 

[Sunstone]

Empirical evidence is not very good for persuading people regarding anything that they actually care much about and is often counterproductive.

There is empirical evidence for this

I admit I was basing my take of things on the persuasive power of empirical evidence to me. I'm almost never convinced of anything major until I've seen enough facts in support of it. From what I've heard, that could be due to what type or kind of personality I have -- or as my ex-wives used to say, "the kind of personality disorder" I have.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Forum veterans: What advice would you give to students who use this forum as a device to improve on their ability to reason in the context of debate?

The best advice I can give is that the method of determining truth is more important than what you claim is truth. As you state, it is the reasoning behind a conclusion that makes the conclusion compelling. The quality of an argument depends on the quality of your reasons for reaching that conclusion. A good argument is one where if the premises are true then the conclusion necessarily follows.

 

[Augustus]

A good argument is one where if the premises are true then the conclusion necessarily follows.

Most arguments here are inductive though so conclusions are probabilistic.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Most arguments here are inductive though so conclusions are probabilistic.

I would agree. Another way to put it is if you accept the premises as accurate then the conclusion is supported.

 

[joe1776]

I don't agree. For me, the purpose of demonstrating reasoning is to help people understand a perspective or communicate successfully, not to convince them that one perspective is right and some other perspective is wrong. The ability to reason and present one's reason need not be connected to chest beating competitions.

I recognize your disagreement, but you are merely playing with words. If there are two opposing positions on the table, then tell me how is "...trying to help people understand a perspective (advocating one of those positions)" significantly different than trying to persuade them that one of those positions is right?

Moreover, I wrote: "The purpose of making a reasoned argument is to persuade unbiased but doubtful minds of the truth of the claim by removing their doubt." How can you, in fairness, turn that statement into... "The ability to reason and present one's reason need not be connected to chest beating competitions."

I'll often bow out of discussions when I get the sense that someone wants to "win" rather than listen.

I don't care if my opponent wants to win. I don't care if my opponent wants to listen. I don't make my arguments to my opponent or to persuade my opponent. I make them to persuade intelligent, unbiased posters-lurkers and then let the chips fall as they may.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I don't care if my opponent wants to win. I don't care if my opponent wants to listen. I don't make my arguments to my opponent or to persuade my opponent. I make them to persuade intelligent, unbiased posters-lurkers and then let the chips fall as they may.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. It says a lot when someone has to reject evidence because it is inconvenient for their position. Debates are rarely held in the context of two people talking to one another and no one else listening.

 

[Quintessence]

I recognize your disagreement, but you are merely playing with words. If there are two opposing positions on the table, then tell me how is "...trying to help people understand a perspective (advocating one of those positions)" significantly different than trying to persuade them that one of those positions is right?

It's different because it doesn't force someone into either-or, this-or-that, black-and-white, dichotomous thinking. It enables one to understand that there can be more than one right answer or option. It allows for pluralism, gray-areas, ambiguity, uncertainty, a lot more creativity, and opportunities for critical thinking. I'll grant there are things that are relatively black-and-white, but there are many more things that are not. Attempting to transform everything into a false dichotomy is something I find problematic. Especially in conversations about the topic of religion, where black-and-white situations are rare.

I'm a bit surprised someone would think this distinction is "merely playing with words." I'm also a bit surprised that someone believes that unbiased people exist. I've never met an unbiased person. Well, not counting infants.

 

[joe1776]

It's different because it doesn't force someone into either-or, this-or-that, black-and-white, dichotomous thinking. It enables one to understand that there can be more than one right answer or option. It allows for pluralism, gray-areas, ambiguity, uncertainty, a lot more creativity, and opportunities for critical thinking. I'll grant there are things that are relatively black-and-white, but there are many more things that are not. Attempting to transform everything into a false dichotomy is something I find problematic. Especially in conversations about the topic of religion, where black-and-white situations are rare.

Your position seems to have shifted. In your original position, you were intent on arguing that "...the purpose of demonstrating reasoning is to help people understand a perspective." That makes no sense unless you meant a certain perspective and that certain perspective does not "allow for pluralism, gray-areas, ambiguity, uncertainty, a lot more creativity, and opportunities for critical thinking."

It also makes no sense to conclude that most either-or debate topics would be transformed into false dichotomies if we concluded that one side was right and the other wrong.

I'm also a bit surprised that someone believes that unbiased people exist. I've never met an unbiased person. Well, not counting infants.

I'm surprised that I'm required to explain that I meant unbiased on whatever the relevant debate topic might be and not a completely blank slate.

 

[Quintessence]

Your position seems to have shifted.

No, not really - this isn't about "positions" to me. Clearly, we are not communicating successfully. Based on the rest of your post, I'm not sure how to resolve that, so I'm just going to shrug and move on. All I'm really saying is that the purpose of making a reasoned argument is not the same for everyone.