3 ms·

>I read/heard something that David Mamet said, that he learned from the study of Jewish law (but it would apply everywhere) that in order for you to have the ba

>I read/heard something that David Mamet said, that he learned from the study of Jewish law (but it would apply everywhere) that in order for you to have the basis to discuss an argument with the other side, you need to be able to state the other side's argument in a way that the other side would not disagree with, then you get to make your point. >I thought that was a nice idea. Its a truly terrible idea, and not surprising that it stems from someone who found religion worth studying. There is no need to delve into the depths of minutia to dismiss baseless arguments. If you argue that Spiderman is real, and he lives at the Justice League, I don't need to study canon of Marvel comics in order to deal with your argument.

tremon 11y ago
You did not understand. Nothing about the GP's position states that you should make your opponent's case for him. In fact, you already met the criteria if your opponent does not disagree with your assessment that he "argues that Spiderman is real, and lives at the Justice League".
omegaham 11y ago
All he's saying is that you need to qualify what exactly the other person is arguing before you start arguing against it. It's a way of preventing strawmanning - you want to get the other person's central viewpoint out in the open, naked and unafraid, so that there is no ambiguity when you make your case. I don't usually do it, mostly because it's patronizing if the point is obvious, but I will do it if the person's argument is convoluted. > someone who found religion worth studying Like it or not, religion has been a cornerstone of history and civilization for about as long as there has been history or civilization. Secularism is a relatively recent invention, and secularism's influence has only been really felt in the last 50 years or so. Religion is history, and history is definitely worthwhile to study.
- tremon 11y ago
  Religion is history That's a dangerous statement to make. Yes, religion has been hugely influential across societies. But religion has been equally succesful in rewriting history to suit its narrative. I suspect religion has destroyed as much history as it has informed.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    And you'll never tell the difference if you won't study it.
- lotharbot 11y ago
  > "you want to get the other person's central viewpoint out in the open, naked and unafraid, so that there is no ambiguity when you make your case" Related: you want to face the other person's central viewpoint in its strongest form ("strongest" in the sense of being the best or most compelling variant, not necessarily the variant which has the most supporters or the most vocal supporters.) This is in both sides' best interest, provided both are honest in their motivations. If someone believes something that's not true, but you only "take down" a misrepresentation of their false belief, you haven't actually helped them, because they know you didn't answer their actual position. It may even strengthen their false belief, because they now have the experience of someone claiming to be able to criticize their position but failing to do so, which they may generalize to "critics of this position have no real argument". And if someone believes something that is true, but you are able to show a misrepresentation or a weaker formulation of it is false, you haven't done yourself any good. You've missed an opportunity to learn something true, by distracting yourself with a superficially similar position that you can dismiss.
- tunesmith 11y ago
  I think there's one exception, and that's the (very common) case where the arguer is leaving their point open to implication and then refuses to explicitly make it. The wink wink nudge nudgers. Then if you try to pin them down, they keep weaseling out of it while continuing to almost make their argument. After a point you just stop engaging them.

tremon 11y ago

You did not understand. Nothing about the GP's position states that you should make your opponent's case for him. In fact, you already met the criteria if your opponent does not disagree with your assessment that he "argues that Spiderman is real, and lives at the Justice League".

omegaham 11y ago

All he's saying is that you need to qualify what exactly the other person is arguing before you start arguing against it. It's a way of preventing strawmanning - you want to get the other person's central viewpoint out in the open, naked and unafraid, so that there is no ambiguity when you make your case. I don't usually do it, mostly because it's patronizing if the point is obvious, but I will do it if the person's argument is convoluted. > someone who found religion worth studying Like it or not, religion has been a cornerstone of history and civilization for about as long as there has been history or civilization. Secularism is a relatively recent invention, and secularism's influence has only been really felt in the last 50 years or so. Religion is history, and history is definitely worthwhile to study.

tremon 11y ago
Religion is history That's a dangerous statement to make. Yes, religion has been hugely influential across societies. But religion has been equally succesful in rewriting history to suit its narrative. I suspect religion has destroyed as much history as it has informed.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  And you'll never tell the difference if you won't study it.
lotharbot 11y ago
> "you want to get the other person's central viewpoint out in the open, naked and unafraid, so that there is no ambiguity when you make your case" Related: you want to face the other person's central viewpoint in its strongest form ("strongest" in the sense of being the best or most compelling variant, not necessarily the variant which has the most supporters or the most vocal supporters.) This is in both sides' best interest, provided both are honest in their motivations. If someone believes something that's not true, but you only "take down" a misrepresentation of their false belief, you haven't actually helped them, because they know you didn't answer their actual position. It may even strengthen their false belief, because they now have the experience of someone claiming to be able to criticize their position but failing to do so, which they may generalize to "critics of this position have no real argument". And if someone believes something that is true, but you are able to show a misrepresentation or a weaker formulation of it is false, you haven't done yourself any good. You've missed an opportunity to learn something true, by distracting yourself with a superficially similar position that you can dismiss.
tunesmith 11y ago
I think there's one exception, and that's the (very common) case where the arguer is leaving their point open to implication and then refuses to explicitly make it. The wink wink nudge nudgers. Then if you try to pin them down, they keep weaseling out of it while continuing to almost make their argument. After a point you just stop engaging them.