|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
posted November 16, 2010 03:03 PM |
|
|
Guide to Eristic
That would make a good sticky so that people can immediately be directed to this thread whenever they are using an "argument" that is ambiguous in validity. Those tricks are usually simple methods people use (myself included, don't think I'm a saint  ) when they want to prove something without substantial arguments.
From Wiki: Eristic, from the ancient Greek word Eris meaning wrangle or strife, often refers to a type of dialogue or argument where the participants do not have any reasonable goal. The aim is to win the argument, not to potentially discover a true or probable answer to any specific question or topic. Eristic dialogue is arguing for the sake of conflict as opposed to the seeking of truth.
In other words, exactly what we’re doing on HC most of the time.
I’d like to show you a few tricks that are commonly used to win discussions without substantial arguments, with some examples… and HC examples. In eristic, arguments can be divided into two groups: I – Nonlogical, II – Emotional.
Nonlogical – Basing on particular circumstances, one draws a conclusion that is convenient for one of the sides.
Emotional – Aiming to lead your disputant into a particular state: anger (i.e. by insulting you), pity (you’re such a good person, you will certainly spare me a few coins for my starving children), fear (it’s better for you not to say anything or I will beat you to the ground).
Nonlogical arguments
1. Argumentum ad populum – aka demagogy - non-substantial way of arguing based on referring to preferences, likes, prejudices and superstitions of people. Basing on national egoism, instincts and stereotypes or biases, rhetor tries to acquire “ground” for his thesis. It’s based on strong dislike of most people toward disturbing the status quo – innovations, everything what’s new and unknown, problems requiring intense thinking, ambiguity or nonconformism.
Example: Instigator on mass-meeting: “you are all perfectly aware that XYZ are a band of thieves and liars, from the beginning – and that will never ever change, so it would be better if they went away never to return”
HC example: “what you are advocating is a method used by loony, immoral marxists”.
In Eristic , Schopenhauer claims:
Quote:
Inconvenient thesis of the opponent is easy to dismiss or undermine by including him in a group of concepts that are hated by us, even if familiarity is sort of weak, and the connection very loose. (…) We’re assuming here two things: 1) Thesis of our opponent is identical to that group of concepts or at least covered by it, that’s when we say “we heard that already”, and 2) that all of that group of concepts, being already devaluated, doesn’t contain a single truth (by our opponent’s logic).
2. Argumentum ad auditorem – Eristic trick used in public discussions – based on giving arguments meant to give us the approbate of auditorium and hence create a pressure on our opponent.
Example: “Just look at him, what a rude person: didn’t even say hello when entering the studio”
HC Example: “You’re already considered stupid by HC community, Elodin.”
Schopenhauer says:
Quote:
utilizes a method referring to respect (argumentum ad yerecundiam); Instead of arguments, one refers to authorities from the field used by the opponent. “everyone prefers to believe instead of passing his own judgement” (Unusquisque mavult credere quam judicare – Seneka).
3. Argumentum e contrario - An argument based on extrapolating a thesis to an incorrect conclusion.
Example: The law says it's irrelevant whether you use a red or blue car. That means using green is illegal.
4. Argumentum ad numerum – A logical mistake – closely tied to argumentum ad populum – commited whenever someone claims, that the legitimacy of a viewpoint is directly proportional to amount of people supporting it.
Example and also HC example: “Most people in my country are atheists, nearly nobody believes in God here”
5. Argumentum ad absurdum – An argument claiming that an unavoidable consequence of accepting one statement is accepting another statement which is either immoral or absurd.
Example: By accepthing homosexuals, people will soon start accepthing pedophiles and necrophiles.
HC example: By not banning Elodin and JJ, we’re destroying the OSM.
6. Argumentum ad ignorantiam – non-substantial way of arguing – claiming, that a thesis is true because your opponent can’t justify the opposite thesis.
Example being also a HC example: “God exists – can you prove he doesn’t” or “God doesn’t exist – can you prove he does?”
7. Argumentum ad verecundiam – Based on timidity – Refers to some form of Authority, not accepted by other side, that however cannot be negated because of common respect towards that authority OR fear of being accused of arrogance.
Example: The Bible says it’s immoral, and the Bible is a word of God who has a bigger authority than you do.
HC Example: Hawking says God being a person rather than collective nature power is ridiculous, are you saying you’re smarter than he is?
Also: – Points a sample to follow, thus “justifying” the rightness of our behavior.
Example: Quote:
Socrates taught philosophy on streets, dignifying the minds of workers, merchants and prostitutes, and that’s how philosophy should look like, being available to those of tiny minds, it should be brought to them to provide some interest to them – C. Znamierowski
HC Example: “The Founding Fathers said welfare is immoral, and shouldn’t be a part of our country”
8.Argumentum ab utili - Convincing people that following what we propose gives benefits, even if it is wrong.
Emotional Arguments
1. Argumentum ad baculum – Threatening the discussant of repercussions that will occur should he not change his way of thinking.
Example and HC example: By writing such things you’re making republicans look like idiots, is that what you want?
2. Argumentum ad hominem – Based on mentioning discussant’s opinions or behavior not connected to the topic.
Example: (talking about, say, drug legalization) : how can I discuss with a person that considers abortion moral?
HC example: Aren’t you that guy that has been seeing Marxists in every topic? Screw this, I’m not talking to you.
3. Argumentum ad personam – Widely known; personal attacks instead of substantial discussion.
Example: you are an idiot
HC example: you are an idiot
I think that should give some posters here a thought.
EDIT: screwed up some titles, fixed - bad me.
How NOT to discuss: step by step: By Schopenhauer:
1. Avoid generalization(instantia) - in the form of expanding opponent's comment beyond original intention - making it more general and less unique - general statements are easier to attack.
2. Avoid intentional confusing of relative and absolute statements to prove something or to rephrase opponent's words in another perspective to make room for unrelated arguments.
3. Avoid giving scattered parts of a general thesis to confuse opponent into accepting bits of it because of not understanding the "complete" sense and then assuming that your opponent accepting "out of context" parts of your thesis equals your opponent accepting your thesis as a whole
4. Avoid hidden petitio principii: Assuming what we're trying to prove using altered names or generalizations to prove a point first, then, prove something more particular basing on your opponent accepting more general point of view (ie. Murder is wrong. Do you agree? than you must agree that abortion is wrong.)
5. Avoid asking many lengthy questions at the same time, trying to hide what are we implying/seeking in answers of our opponent. It's generally harder to focus on one's point when having to answer many different partly-related questions - avoid capitalizing on someone's mistake in one of the questions to prove someone's lack of credibility later.
6. Avoid insolence - insolent questions or behavior makes it harder for opponent to focus on the POINT instead of your BEHAVIOR (which is a trick meant to divert the attention towards the BEHAVIOR not the POINT).
7. Avoid deliberate changing of order of deduction of your opponent - also in quoting - to prevent your opponent losing his point in having to rephrase what has been deliberately mixed and taken out of context by you.
8. Avoiding asking questions referring to particular cases, then, without asking assume that he agreed on a thesis that would match those cases (do you download music from internet? Are you aware that this denies hypothetical profit? do you think work should be awarded? yes/yes/yes = you are a thief)
9. Avoiding nitpicking words/comparisons that are convenient for us to give them negative meaning by the need of the moment. Ie. Applying tax is bad (when talking about welfare) ; applying tax is good (when talking about army).
10. Avoid offering a choice between a thesis proposed by us and an exagerrated antithesis (i.e. will you either ban Elodin, or let him post and completely destroy the boards?)
11. Avoid claiming you have proven something when it doesn't seem to be proven at all i.e. Elodin: I already proven you are wrong and lying (even though both Elodin's opponent AND the spectators don't feel Elodin has proven anything) - it's a claim to strengthen your opinion by untrue means (repeat a lie making it seem true and justified by your actions even though those actions failed to do a claimed point)
12. Avoid tricking your opponent by giving him any true (absolutely, not relatively) statement, then capitilizing on him agreeing in that particular thing later in an unrelated discussion (we have already agreed stealing is bad in topic X, why are you posting that downloading is ok now in topic Y)
13. Avoid, Via ad hominem or ex concessis, search for something in thesis of your opponent that makes it invalid compared to opinions of the group the poster claims to belong to. (Ie. you can't advocate self-defense being a Christian, Elodin)
14. Against a strong counter-argument, avoid skewing your thesis to prove the counter-argument wasn't aimed at what you're actually trying to prove.
15. Avoid Mutatio controversiae: don't change the subject seeing that the opponent is on the right path to prove you're wrong (X: I've given you proofs that the Bible is true by quoting a famous phisician! Y: What you have quoted is a discredited pro-christian scientist X: That doesn't change the fact that you're wrong by claiming XYZ {instead of addressing the source's ambiguous credibility}
16. Avoid, When asked precise, specific question, responding with general thesis posted earlier. (ie. question: do you consider army tax evil? your answer: as I said before I consider all marxist practice evil INSTEAD OF yes/no I do/don't)
17. Fallacia non causae ut causae: Avoid Treating things you've agreed on earlier as a proof, even though you disagree in other things effectively making it not a proof that your opponent agrees with you. (ie. You've claimed stealing is wrong, X! So you agree that piracy is wrong by telling so! Yes, I conveniently skipped the fact that we don't agree on 20 other things related to is-piracy-a-theft)
18. Whenever an opponent uses one of the tricks mentioned above or below, instead of following his example and also using them, expose eristic trick and don't copy it. See Elodin's "they've been using ad personam, so I have too as well."
19. Avoid classifying what your opponent tries to prove as petitio principii (insufficient proof logical error). This challenges the opponent into trying to find more credible or different sources rather then addressing those already presented. (example: You: prove it. X: see here, here and here. Y: that's not good enough INSTEAD OF I think "here" is not correct because of XYZ)
20. Avoid argumentum ad aditorem when feeling the poster isn't exactly smart enough to understand what you are saying. (obvious: I've explained something via quantum physics I don't understand well myself and capitalize on the fact my opponent also doesn't)
21. Avoid "Resisting admitting" anything long enough to provoke opponent into expanding his theory; then finding a flaw in that expansion and claiming it a proof that the whole theory is BS. Example: A: I've been giving you Bible examples long enough, you ignore everything, here's a fragment (...) B: AHA! Bats classified as birds? This is BS! And everything you've said up to this point also is. I win.
22.Diversion. When seeing we're losing, avoiding changing the subject so that you may address opponent's arguments once more on a different basis and prove them incorrect.
23. Avoid referring to authorities and considering them Alpha-and-omega instead of explaining. So don't say "The Founding Fathers said this and that" but say "I think XYZ is good because of ZYX - you may add that "An authority also thinks that" to AMPLIFY your argument, not to MAKE one.
24. Avoid sentence like "I can't understand you, you make no sense" - instead of undermining one's credibility instead of his arguments' credibility.
25. Avoid parallels between someone's opinion and something regarded as heresy, false science. For example (You can't advocate organ transplantation from the dead, it's like Nazi's ways of making bodies useful by turning them into soap! - ofc, this is an urban myth, but it's just an example.
26. Avoid trying to prove large disproportions between theory and practice, seeking to point out that theory because of that is flawed and wrong (just because something doesn't follow the model doesn't mean the model is wrong)
27. Avoid asking a question that the opponent can't answer via lack of knowledge from another discipline. (Me: I think abortion is wrong/good Scientist: Do you understand genetic engineering? Me: No Scientist: Then shut up, you're much less knowledgeable than I am and hence I have the authority to speak, not you)
28. Avoid a massive wall of gibberish to confuse the opponent into missing a point masked somewhere between tl;dr text or even "camuflaged" between idiocy.
29 and possibly the most popular and widely used: If someone is right, but has used incorrect argumentation, don't claim you've proved the thesis wrong because of proving the argumentation wrong. (A: killing is wrong B; why? A: Because I read that in a book B: haha, that book was written by a mental institute patient, you think that's actually an argument? A:well, no... B: than killing is fine, thank you)
30. Obvious. No ad personam.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 04:17 PM |
|
|
Dude, stop. You'll cause a...
*rumblerumblerumble*
OH ****! RUN! THIS PLACE IS GONNA BLOW!
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 16, 2010 04:37 PM |
|
|
Last time I checked Sokrates had some fun with defining what was actually being talked about, and thus locking away possible throw aways one by one before winning debates.
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2010 05:00 PM |
|
|
Not interested in the topic, guys? I thought eristic tricks is what plagued our OSM many times. Pretty reluctant to talk about it? 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 20, 2010 05:15 PM |
|
|
Wow. That was a read.
Good stuff though.
I gotta say; makes me wonder how bad I'm stumbling about
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted November 20, 2010 05:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
24. Avoid sentence like "I can't understand you, you make no sense" - instead of undermining one's credibility instead of his arguments' credibility.
fix pls
oh and this quote proves your argumentation wrong. I win.
After reading this through I'm sure to pay more attention to my own thought processes but since I don't post anything in the OSM (aside from one liners) the OSM won't benefit from it, while I might
____________
none of my business.
|
| |
|
|
