Personal Development for Smart People Forums - View Single Post - Argumentation

Michael Chui · 05-01-2007, 10:16 AM

I've been in a lot of arguments both here and, well... a lot of places. And, over time, I've come to the conclusion that my style of argumentation is pretty rare. Most people appear to begin from two assumptions: that they're correct about the issue at hand--that they already have certain knowledge of the topic--and that, more painfully, anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong. They carry the argument forward from there. I find this arrogant, foolish, unnecessarily contrarian, and annoyingly hindering.

So I'll outline my style.

0. All opinions are plausible until concluded false; accept them.
1. If possible, do not begin with an opinion; conclude it.
2. If you must have an opinion, assume that it is wrong; prove it.
3. If you cannot believe it is wrong, say nothing illogical and admit your assumptions; show it.

To me, this was obvious. I seek to treat "opponents" as co-conspirators against the veiled universe, participants against whom frames, suggestions, and ideas can be bounced off in unexpected ways, and thus tools for the purpose of discovering truth.

If you like, this is an application of subjective reality in Steve's style. The existence of other people, as extensions of yourself, are pathways of exploration through which you have a greater access to the truth. You don't fight yourself; you cannot prevail over yourself; they simply reflect as a prism, scattering your thoughts into a rainbow.

I suppose if I were to summarize it, I would say, "Just because others are wrong doesn't make you right. So why bother showing that other people are wrong? Just show that you're right and defend it as needed."

Incidentally, I'd be grateful if anyone reading showed me any cases where I don't follow my own outline. I'm half-convinced I don't quite often, but I can never think of them, so here's my neck: take a swing.

05-01-2007, 10:16 AM	#1 (permalink)
Michael Chui Family Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Seattle, Washington, USA Posts: 3,977	Argumentation - My Style, My Method I've been in a lot of arguments both here and, well... a lot of places. And, over time, I've come to the conclusion that my style of argumentation is pretty rare. Most people appear to begin from two assumptions: that they're correct about the issue at hand--that they already have certain knowledge of the topic--and that, more painfully, anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong. They carry the argument forward from there. I find this arrogant, foolish, unnecessarily contrarian, and annoyingly hindering. So I'll outline my style. 0. All opinions are plausible until concluded false; accept them. 1. If possible, do not begin with an opinion; conclude it. 2. If you must have an opinion, assume that it is wrong; prove it. 3. If you cannot believe it is wrong, say nothing illogical and admit your assumptions; show it. To me, this was obvious. I seek to treat "opponents" as co-conspirators against the veiled universe, participants against whom frames, suggestions, and ideas can be bounced off in unexpected ways, and thus tools for the purpose of discovering truth. If you like, this is an application of subjective reality in Steve's style. The existence of other people, as extensions of yourself, are pathways of exploration through which you have a greater access to the truth. You don't fight yourself; you cannot prevail over yourself; they simply reflect as a prism, scattering your thoughts into a rainbow. I suppose if I were to summarize it, I would say, "Just because others are wrong doesn't make you right. So why bother showing that other people are wrong? Just show that you're right and defend it as needed." Incidentally, I'd be grateful if anyone reading showed me any cases where I don't follow my own outline. I'm half-convinced I don't quite often, but I can never think of them, so here's my neck: take a swing.