Argumentation - My Style, My Method

[Michael Chui]

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.

[ArthurHung]

EDIT: Looking back on this post, I was committing the same mistake that I was talking about

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

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.

I like how you start at "0". I wish more people had your style. I think you have responded to some of my posts and helped clear me up because of your ability to not just say "your wrong because I think I'm right".

I think many like to think they believe something that they can't prove but some how think they know is true and then are surprized and feel the need to tell others that they are wrong when they can't even prove to themselves what they believe.

Then there's debates or argueing over something that hasn't really been defined - or that Steve redefined as something other than what it normally means - specifically the subjective reality ideas. Debating ideas that are taken in different meanings is recipe for misunderstanding and frustrations.

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."

That sounds like how I try to operate. I try to first seek to understand someone, regardless of any of my pre-judgements or ideas. And I'm more often trying to not believe things, as opposed to believing something - I have enough left over beliefs mucking with me already. If I can't understand them there's not much to talk about. Or if they end up not being able to explain what they mean, then they aren't really saying anything.

Eventually, I always hope, that there's a common ground somewhere. However, common ground is not found in what someone decides to believe with faith. I mean, you could have that same faith as common ground, but faith is not really a belief in my mind - it's just someone wanting to use a belief for some reason - they have decided to ignore the ambiguousness of not being able to prove it and take on the belief. Maybe that's OK, as Steve has writen about using belief sets and switching them in and out of your filters of reality.

Someone believing something with an experience is another thing - and if I haven't had that experience there's no need to tell them they are wrong.

If I'm right about something, I hope it is something that is true for everyone and as such would not need defending. Or if I try to defend and it's not true, eventually it will become false or not proveable - as long there are people like you desiring to "treat 'opponents' as co-conspirators against the veiled universe"!

However, it almost seems like there is very little that is "true". Or it's true only because of it's definition.

[Erin Pavlina]

Michael, I think you're an excellent "arguer" for the very reasons you outlined. I am always refreshed reading your posts and totally respect your method. I wish more people followed those tenets.

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

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.

I haven't read enough of your arguments to judge how successful you've been at following your own tenets, but I think they are an excellent set of rules to aspire to. I especially like your mindset of the "opponent". Maybe because I share it.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

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."

I try to do this but fail when the desire to show others the unseen (but none-the-less experienced) negative sides of their beliefs outweighs my desire to show that I'm right.

I've never considered any of your arguments to go against what you've outlined.

Too often I fall into a confrontational mode of argumentation so reminders of this more effective method are always handy. Thank you.

[bellbird]

Your posts seems very concise and intelligent. It feels that your goal is to clarify, whereas the other party often gets in a huff thinking you're 'attacking'. It would be wonderful to have such an organised way of thinking as you have, because to me that's what you seem to posess. Anyway my brain is more chaoticly wired so I find your way of approach very interesting. You will not get any swings from me.