4 ms·

I wonder if there's some sort of way to definitively defeat someone's argument in issues other than math and science. I doubt it -- I suspect all arguments ess

I wonder if there's some sort of way to definitively defeat someone's argument in issues other than math and science. I doubt it -- I suspect all arguments essentially boil down to moral relativism based upon gut feelings (environmental or genetic factors). I guess a more optimistic question is whether there's a statistically significant process to convince* your opponent that your argument is correct. I would actually be more interested in knowing this. *By process, I mean a general purpose algorithm that someone could follow that's more effective than alternative algorithms at making your opponent say "you know what, you're right". EDIT: While I'm at it, I would really like to see more articles/analyses on the nature of arguing. It seems like argument could be a study in its own right, though I doubt there exist any strong efforts in the field. EDIT 2: You know what, if someone got really good at analyzing the way people argue, they could optimize their own argument strategy to become a very powerful/dangerous person. I suspect this happens naturally (political leaders) but I think there's a huge potential if someone were to go about this consciously and objectively.

slurgfest 14y ago
This is an ancient field and its name is rhetoric.
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  And as far as I can tell, it's never been objective. Where's the studies comparing multiple styles of argument and determining which had the highest percentages of "wins"?
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    How do you objectively pin down the concept of "win"?
    - lutusp 14y ago
      By having a panel of judges and a formal debate, with strict rules. The panel then decides who is the "winner".
    - aidenn0 14y ago
      You get elected
csense 14y ago
> arguments essentially boil down to moral relativism based upon gut feelings (environmental or genetic factors) There are many pieces of this problem. A few of them at random: 1. The US education system doesn't do a good job of teaching people to think rigorously and analytically. Up to 12th grade, math is largely memorizing specific algorithms, science is memorizing vocabulary words, real programming courses are usually optional and don't exist at most schools. 2. Our education system actively beats down original critical thinking and encourages people to do what they think the teacher wants. 3. In college, a vast majority professors and students are very liberal. I have never heard or come up with a satisfactory explanation for the causes of this; for me personally, many of my innate leftward biases actually declined through high school and college as my logical reasoning abilities became more acute through application to harder problems, and I gained more experience of the world. But the prevalance of a single political point of view in our institutions of higher learning may actually cause great damage to our country's political problem-solving abilities: Many people who are highly intelligent and formally trained to think critically avoid questioning liberal ideas because everyone they know and respect thinks the same way, while they are overly dismissive of conservative ideas because many of their proponents don't have the tools to effectively argue their positions.
- hef19898 14y ago
  > to point one: In Germany its more or less the same, my best guess as to why it is so is that it is easier to do exams on memorized knowledge than independant thinking and because you need some basics to beginn with. This doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see more critical and analytical thinking > point 2: largly depends on the subject. in maths, physics chemistry and biology (tough field given the whole evolution story) it's more about facts and not about opinion (generaly speaking, in the higher levels of it I guess it changes, but even then more on execution questions). In "softer" (lacking a better word) subjects I completly agree.
klibertp 14y ago
> By process, I mean a general purpose algorithm that someone could follow that's more effective than alternative algorithms at making your opponent say "you know what, you're right" I'm 99% sure that there is such thing, that it was studied, described and used. It has it's own name even. I'm not talking about propaganda, rhetoric or marketing, it's something deeper, from which these emerge. I'm even sure there is a book considered 'canonical' on this topic. Unfortunately, I don't remember any specifics. I more or less remember how I came to know this, but it was a blog post of a journalist, and, unfortunately, his archive spans multiple years and thousands of posts and I couldn't find the one about this topic now. Summary: the process your looking for is well defined, although not widely known; and I will try looking for relevant info some more and I'll post it when I find it.

slurgfest 14y ago

This is an ancient field and its name is rhetoric.

Xcelerate 14y ago
And as far as I can tell, it's never been objective. Where's the studies comparing multiple styles of argument and determining which had the highest percentages of "wins"?
- slurgfest 14y ago
  How do you objectively pin down the concept of "win"?
  - lutusp 14y ago
    By having a panel of judges and a formal debate, with strict rules. The panel then decides who is the "winner".
  - aidenn0 14y ago
    You get elected

csense 14y ago

> arguments essentially boil down to moral relativism based upon gut feelings (environmental or genetic factors) There are many pieces of this problem. A few of them at random: 1. The US education system doesn't do a good job of teaching people to think rigorously and analytically. Up to 12th grade, math is largely memorizing specific algorithms, science is memorizing vocabulary words, real programming courses are usually optional and don't exist at most schools. 2. Our education system actively beats down original critical thinking and encourages people to do what they think the teacher wants. 3. In college, a vast majority professors and students are very liberal. I have never heard or come up with a satisfactory explanation for the causes of this; for me personally, many of my innate leftward biases actually declined through high school and college as my logical reasoning abilities became more acute through application to harder problems, and I gained more experience of the world. But the prevalance of a single political point of view in our institutions of higher learning may actually cause great damage to our country's political problem-solving abilities: Many people who are highly intelligent and formally trained to think critically avoid questioning liberal ideas because everyone they know and respect thinks the same way, while they are overly dismissive of conservative ideas because many of their proponents don't have the tools to effectively argue their positions.

hef19898 14y ago
> to point one: In Germany its more or less the same, my best guess as to why it is so is that it is easier to do exams on memorized knowledge than independant thinking and because you need some basics to beginn with. This doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see more critical and analytical thinking > point 2: largly depends on the subject. in maths, physics chemistry and biology (tough field given the whole evolution story) it's more about facts and not about opinion (generaly speaking, in the higher levels of it I guess it changes, but even then more on execution questions). In "softer" (lacking a better word) subjects I completly agree.

klibertp 14y ago

> By process, I mean a general purpose algorithm that someone could follow that's more effective than alternative algorithms at making your opponent say "you know what, you're right" I'm 99% sure that there is such thing, that it was studied, described and used. It has it's own name even. I'm not talking about propaganda, rhetoric or marketing, it's something deeper, from which these emerge. I'm even sure there is a book considered 'canonical' on this topic. Unfortunately, I don't remember any specifics. I more or less remember how I came to know this, but it was a blog post of a journalist, and, unfortunately, his archive spans multiple years and thousands of posts and I couldn't find the one about this topic now. Summary: the process your looking for is well defined, although not widely known; and I will try looking for relevant info some more and I'll post it when I find it.