- Use Your Mistakes. Don't be afraid to make mistakes in public as long as you learn from your mistakes.
- Respect Your Opponent. Apply the principle of charity charitably.
- The 'Surely' Klaxon. Use of the word 'surely' in argumentative essays is a good indicator of weak points in arguments.
- Answer Rhetorical Questions. If you can think of unobvious answers to rhetorical questions, then that is an indication of weak points in arguments.
- Employ Occam's Razor. Give preference to simple theories over complicated ones.
- Don't Waste Your Time on Rubbish. Don't waste your time on lousy work, of which there is a lot out there.
- Beware of Deepities. Be mindful of ambiguities. For example:
What do you think of Dennett's seven tools for thinking?
Regarding (1), do you think that one can always learn from one's mistakes?
Regarding (2), do you think that all argumentative opponents deserve respect?
Regarding (3), do you think that 'surely' is a good indicator of argumentative flaws?
Regarding (4), do you think that, if a rhetorical question has an unobvious answer, then that means that the obvious answer is false?
Regarding (5), do you think that simple theories are more likely to be true?
Regarding (6), do you think that considering nonsense is always a waste of time?
Regarding (7), do you think that ambiguity is usually a bad thing in argumentative contexts?
1) I do not believe one can always learn from one’s mistakes in that when one person realizes they’ve made a mistake they might not always understand why he or she was wrong, and so the key to learning from a mistake is understanding why one was wrong. Therefore, if a person can’t understand why he is wrong, then he won’t always learn from a mistake.
ReplyDelete2) The principle of charity explains to us that that all argumentative opponents deserve respect. The principle of charity explains that we set aside our own beliefs and presume that our opponent’s ideas are true in an attempt to truly understand the core perspective of the opponent’s argument as well as its validity. If one cannot do this, then one cannot be open to all possibilities. If one cannot be open to all possibilities, then he might not know when he is wrong. Therefore, if one does not respect all argumentative opponents, one might not know when he or she is wrong.
3) I do believe that surely is a good indicator for a flawed argument. Surely is an ambiguous word. Since ambiguity does not provide for assurance, then when an argument uses surely, it does not provide a strong conclusion.
4) I do believe that that if a rhetorical question has an unobvious answer then that means the obvious answer is false. If there is an answer to a rhetorical question that is unobvious, then the rhetorical question is no longer rhetorical; that is it is a question that has a logical answer no longer obvious to everyone who hears the question. Questions cannot have multiple answers, therefore the obvious answer to the rhetorical question is no longer true.
5) No, simple theories are not necessarily more likely to be true. If we look at Newton’s three laws of physics one might believe that simple theories like his three are more likely to be proved true than a more complicated theory. That being said, if we look at more advanced theories in Calculus that have extensive formulas, one can also see that they are true as well. Therefore, a simple theory is not more likely to be true.
6) Yes, studying nonsense is always a waste of time. If an argument has no reasonable premises to support its conclusion, than an argument is not valid. Therefore, studying nonsense is always a waste of time.
7) Yes, ambiguity is usually a bad thing in an argumentative context. If there is an argument with ambiguity, it can be interpreted in a way that doesn’t support logic of the person who presented the argument. If people misinterpret the logic behind a person’s argument, then they cannot understand the conclusion of the argument. Therefore, ambiguity leads to misunderstanding the conclusion of an argument.
Regarding (1), do you think that one can always learn from one's mistakes?
ReplyDeleteI agree with this idea. Errors provide the opportunity to analyze mistakes and learn, only if the individual’s attitude is positive however.
Regarding (2), do you think that all argumentative opponents deserve respect?
I also agree with this claim. The essence of persuasion is to get the subject to listen to you. Showing respect can be seen as a means in order to reach a middle ground with the opposing party and have the opportunity to persuade them.
Regarding (3), do you think that 'surely' is a good indicator of argumentative flaws?
The word “surely” indicates a sign of doubt by the individual. It’s a word that is suppose to reaffirm that they have no doubt, nevertheless the fact that they have to reaffirm their belief is a sign of weakness.
Regarding (4), do you think that, if a rhetorical question has an unobvious answer, then that means that the obvious answer is false?
Rhetorical questions that fail to have obvious answers fail to be rhetorical questions. I can see how the author can perceive the obvious answer as false, for there was never an obvious answer to begin with.
Regarding (5), do you think that simple theories are more likely to be true?
Simple theories are easier to understand for the audience, however it doesn't necessarily mean that they are more likely to be true compared to more complex theories. How would we perceive Albert Einstein's and Nikola Tesla’s theories if this statement were to be true.
Regarding (6), do you think that considering nonsense is always a waste of time?
In the context of nonsense meaning material that is irrelevant to the argument, then yes-it is a waste of time.
Regarding (7), do you think that ambiguity is usually a bad thing in argumentative contexts
Being in an argument setting, one must be persuasive and simple in order influence the opposition. Being ambiguous in that setting limits your ability to capture the opponents attention. He/she doesn't understand your argument. This is an ineffective way of going about an argument.
Dennett’s seven tools for thinking are interesting and open the door for serious thought when it comes to argumentation and philosophy. However, these tools should not be taken as the golden rules, they should be probing questions for thoughts on argumentation and philosophy.
ReplyDelete(1) Indeed, one can always learn from one’s mistakes. Idiocy can be defined as doing the exact same actions and expecting a different result. So naturally, those who are not idiotic can learn from their mistakes if they intend to create different results. However, this does not mean that one always learns form one’s mistake. The possibility of learning from one’s mistakes is always there (so they technically can learn from them), yet some people simply just don’t (not necessarily because they can’t but, more so because they either chose or happen not to).
(2) Argumentative appointments deserve respect because they are human beings and their thoughts, lives, and experiences matter. Also, argumentative appointments may serve as a means for enlightenment as they are striving to influence your thoughts, just as you theirs. However, you can give your opponent respect without suspending your beliefs as the principle of charity suggests. You simply have to have the open mind to see things from a different perspective.
(3) Use of word “surely” is not a good indicator of argumentative flaws. In fact, according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the use of words such as “surely” or “definitely,” “[can] indicate the relevant intentions of the arguer.” In saying this the use of the word “surely” or definitely” can simply distinguish between a deductive and an inductive argument.
(4) If a rhetorical question has unobvious answers, it does not necessarily make the obvious answer false. In saying this, answers to rhetorical questions often have relative answers, meaning that a truth to one may be a fallacy to another. Lets take the following rhetorical question by social reformer, Frederick Douglass as an example: "Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to understand?" While the obvious answer to this question is, “No” (he mustn’t argue the wrongfulness of slavery), the existence of the unobvious answer (“Yes”) to those who do agree with the institution of slavery does not prove that the obvious answer (“No”) is false. Then comes the question, “False to who?” This answer may be false to those that agree with slavery and true to those who don’t agree with slavery.
(5) Simple theories are not more likely to be true. The idea that a somehow more complicated theory is more likely to be false just because it is not simple has no real basis. After all, just because one has more of a struggle with understanding a theory and deems it complicated does not means that that theory is probably false anyway. It simply means that the theory is just more complex. However, a quality of good writing is being concise and straight to the point so I see why people would be more inclined to deem a simple theory true before a complicated one.
(6) While spending your time on nonsense can appear like a waste of time, it really isn’t a complete waste of time. People consider a wide range of things as nonsense, even others opinions. And though one may consider another’s opinion nonsense now, this “nonsense” can actually be a form of enlightenment by giving one a new perspective.
(7) Being ambiguous in an argument is definitely not the way to persuade your audience. Ambiguity in an argument can have negative effects on the party you are delivering your argument to. Ambiguity in argumentation can lead to a feeling on incompleteness in one’s claim and leaving one’s audience unfulfilled and even baffled. Whether written or spoken, one of the most important qualities of communication is clarity—the opposite of ambiguity.