[HN Gopher] Stages of Argument (2000)
___________________________________________________________________
Stages of Argument (2000)
Author : skilled
Score : 30 points
Date : 2024-06-19 17:35 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (legacy.earlham.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (legacy.earlham.edu)
| GMoromisato wrote:
| Stage 5 is when you realize that all political/ethical arguments
| are variants of the Trolley Problem and highly dependent on non-
| falsifiable axioms. In other words, there is no Objectively
| Correct answer to any political/ethical argument.
|
| I think the biggest fallacy is the idea that (a) there exists an
| Objectively Correct political position, and (b) my opponents
| would accept that position if only they weren't stupid or
| corrupt.
|
| The genius of democracy is that it acknowledges this, and that
| the only way to decide is for everyone to vote their preference.
|
| The challenge of democracy, of course, is that it works best when
| people are roughly equal in terms of knowledge, wealth, and
| culture. The more homogenous a society is, the more likely it is
| to choose policies that benefit all. But splintered societies
| lead to zero-sum, winner-take-all conflicts.
| Jensson wrote:
| Which is why you shouldn't have so big countries, smaller
| countries is better for democracy. All tries to consolidate
| power and countries are undemocratic.
| GMoromisato wrote:
| Yes. But some large countries are homogenous enough to be
| fine. The US, for all its flaws and divisions, is arguably
| homogenous enough to stay together (though I guess we'll see
| what the next 50 years bring).
|
| China and India (modulo their regional minorities) are
| homogenous enough to stay together.
|
| Another option is to have multiple levels of government where
| many important decisions are local but others are made at a
| higher level. The EU is a great example of this (modulo
| Brexit).
| nine_k wrote:
| But small countries have a hard time withstanding attacks of
| big undemocratic countries. Hence treaties and federations.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| Has anyone coined the "Schopenhauer Fallacy" to explain when
| people believe replacing complex and nuanced ideas with a symbol
| helps resolve arguments relating to those ideas? (I.e., a
| logomachy)
| YackerLose wrote:
| This analysis totally ignores the power of snappiness. Of being
| laconic. It's the sort of stuff that works in the walled garden
| of academia but completely ignores the state of reality, where
| the average person is so bogged down by information overload that
| the gist is all they ever desire. I think a pie chart or an
| infographic is infinitely more powerful than a "Stage 4
| argument".
| philsnow wrote:
| > This analysis totally ignores the power of snappiness. Of
| being laconic.
|
| You can convince somebody with an unsound argument if you say
| it in a certain way, but it seems unethical to do so.
| slowhadoken wrote:
| Stage 1.) state an observable but unpopular fact. Stage 2.)
| endure verbal abuse. Stage 3.) endure psychological abuse. Stage
| 4.) endure social abuse. Stage 5.) wait five to ten years when
| the observable fact is confirmed but by then it's pointless and
| everyone can act like it's obvious.
| nine_k wrote:
| "First, they ignore you. Next, they ridicule you. Then you
| win."
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| "...then you ignore them."
| eleveriven wrote:
| And now we have created a cycle
| philsnow wrote:
| Stage 4 sounds somewhat like the structure of the Summa
| Theologica, wherein Aquinas addresses hundreds of individual
| questions following a few themes, each with the same structure
| (quoting from [0]):
|
| > Each "Article" has five structural parts. First, the question
| is formulated in a yes or no format, as explained above,
| beginning with the word "Whether" (Utrum).
|
| > Second, St. Thomas lists a number of Objections (usually three)
| to the answer he will give. The Objections are apparent proofs of
| this opposite answer, the other side to the debate. These
| objections begin with the formula: "It seems tha" (Oportet).
|
| > These Objections must be arguments, not just opinions, for one
| of the basic principles of any intelligent debate (woefully
| neglected in all modern media) is that each debater must give
| relevant reasons for every controvertible opinion he expresses.
| The Objections are to be taken seriously, as apparent truth.
|
| > Third, St. Thomas indicated his own position with the formula
| "On the contrar" (Sed contra).
|
| > The fourth part, "I answer that" (Respondeo dicens), is the
| body of the Article. In it, St. Thomas proves his own position,
| often adding necessary background explanations and making needed
| distinctions along the way.
|
| > Fifth and finally, each Objection must be addressed and
| answered--not merely by repeating an argument to prove the
| opposite conclusion, for that has already been done in the body
| of the Article, but by explaining where and how the Objection
| went wrong, i.e., by distinguishing the truth from the falsity in
| the Objection.
|
| [0]
| https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/summa...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-19 23:01 UTC)