3 ms·

> It is about stepping out of the opinion you inhabit and trying to look at it from your opponent's perspective. But you do this automatically when you are try

> It is about stepping out of the opinion you inhabit and trying to look at it from your opponent's perspective. But you do this automatically when you are trying to discern the truth - invalid arguments are to be eliminated. The whole, now argue for the other side is kind of ... frankly, telling the anyone to argue for any side is ridiculous IMHO. You are pretty much putting the cart before the horse - i.e. picking a position before the arguing has even started. The whole point of discussion and debate should be to decide which position to pick (because it's the factually correct one).

freeopinion 3y ago
Perhaps. Or maybe there is a completely different purpose in this exercise. We could pick a topic like "Passing by reference is better than passing by value". In the end we might not care at all about "getting to the truth." The topic could be "salt tastes better than pepper." The point of this exercise could be to learn that "nine out of ten dentists" arguments are flawed and why. It could be to practice listening skills to be able to "flow" the points of discussion. These practices might not be to get at the truth of any particular argument, but to learn methods to get at the truth of any and all arguments.
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  To be more precise, what you are talking about is analysing the outward form of the argument, to see trough the misdirection rhetoric has provided. It is then the task of logic to examine the core propositions and determine if they mean anything.
noduerme 3y ago
There are cases where people are intractable in their beliefs, and both may be right. Abortion in the US is a good example. Regardless of what I personally believe, I will not write off half the people I meet as moral idiots or say that they don't have a valid point. I think both sides are right and wrong, and I don't have the indecency to believe I should be an arbiter of every case. And I could argue either side. That's important when you go from your general principles to being forced to deal with the individual cases. The most astonishing thing about the law is what it shows you about the individual nature of most incidents. No two things are alike. If you are in a courtroom, say, serving on a jury, you will be presented with carefully crafted discussion and debate which will make you think the best and worst of both sides. The lawyers presenting those cases could switch at any moment and present to you the opposite side's case. Does the opposite side not deserve representation? How many false convictions resulted in the death penalty because a lawyer failed to argue their client's case well enough? How many pagans were burned at the stake, or Christians crucified and fed to lions, because people were taught that argumentation was to decide which position to pick? Discussion is to open your eyes, not close your mind.
honzabe 3y ago
> But you do this automatically when you are trying to discern the truth - invalid arguments are to be eliminated. The world would look a lot different if this were something people do "automatically". No, it is laborious and emotionally difficult, and even smart and intellectually honest people who try hard fail at it often. > The whole point of discussion and debate should be to decide which position to pick (because it's the factually correct one). Something in this formulation reminded me of those times at university - I was going through some sort of crisis during the first year. In my country at the time, elementary school and even high school approached things kind of like "there are things you don't know yet and once you learn the facts, you will know the truth". University destroyed this for me. I started to realize how flawed our brains are and how complex reality is. There are facts that are and always will be beyond our grasp and we can only have approximations of approximations, simplified models that hopefully work well enough to be useful. It was surprisingly emotionally difficult for me to accept that fundamental insecurity and un-discoverability of some ultimate "truth".

freeopinion 3y ago

Perhaps. Or maybe there is a completely different purpose in this exercise. We could pick a topic like "Passing by reference is better than passing by value". In the end we might not care at all about "getting to the truth." The topic could be "salt tastes better than pepper." The point of this exercise could be to learn that "nine out of ten dentists" arguments are flawed and why. It could be to practice listening skills to be able to "flow" the points of discussion. These practices might not be to get at the truth of any particular argument, but to learn methods to get at the truth of any and all arguments.

SiempreViernes 3y ago
To be more precise, what you are talking about is analysing the outward form of the argument, to see trough the misdirection rhetoric has provided. It is then the task of logic to examine the core propositions and determine if they mean anything.

noduerme 3y ago

There are cases where people are intractable in their beliefs, and both may be right. Abortion in the US is a good example. Regardless of what I personally believe, I will not write off half the people I meet as moral idiots or say that they don't have a valid point. I think both sides are right and wrong, and I don't have the indecency to believe I should be an arbiter of every case. And I could argue either side. That's important when you go from your general principles to being forced to deal with the individual cases. The most astonishing thing about the law is what it shows you about the individual nature of most incidents. No two things are alike. If you are in a courtroom, say, serving on a jury, you will be presented with carefully crafted discussion and debate which will make you think the best and worst of both sides. The lawyers presenting those cases could switch at any moment and present to you the opposite side's case. Does the opposite side not deserve representation? How many false convictions resulted in the death penalty because a lawyer failed to argue their client's case well enough? How many pagans were burned at the stake, or Christians crucified and fed to lions, because people were taught that argumentation was to decide which position to pick? Discussion is to open your eyes, not close your mind.

honzabe 3y ago

> But you do this automatically when you are trying to discern the truth - invalid arguments are to be eliminated. The world would look a lot different if this were something people do "automatically". No, it is laborious and emotionally difficult, and even smart and intellectually honest people who try hard fail at it often. > The whole point of discussion and debate should be to decide which position to pick (because it's the factually correct one). Something in this formulation reminded me of those times at university - I was going through some sort of crisis during the first year. In my country at the time, elementary school and even high school approached things kind of like "there are things you don't know yet and once you learn the facts, you will know the truth". University destroyed this for me. I started to realize how flawed our brains are and how complex reality is. There are facts that are and always will be beyond our grasp and we can only have approximations of approximations, simplified models that hopefully work well enough to be useful. It was surprisingly emotionally difficult for me to accept that fundamental insecurity and un-discoverability of some ultimate "truth".