What should argument in the personal sphere be like?

Answer: a critical discussion, which is a problem solving discussion in which the participants mutually desire to resolve the disagreement that they face

Stages of a Critical Discussion

1) The disagreement is identified and agreed upon.

2) Agree on how the disagreement is to be resolved.

3) The positions of each party are explored (attacked, defended, reached consensus on positions) in as much detail as necessary.

4) As consensus on positions are reached, the disagreement is resolved. The disagreement might be resolved by thinking outside the box of the participants’ original positions. The critical discussion may end without a resolution/agreement.

How to enter a critical discussion:

1) Don’t just want to win because the parties to this discussion want each side to be satisfied because of the personal bond between the parties.

2) Each party has an equal opportunity to influence the other party. It is not a superior to subordinate conversation.

3) Each party is willing to come to an agreement about the dispute based on the merits of the conversation without reference to other considerations.

NOT ALLOWED:

You owe me one

If you loved me you would agree with me

p/u at 18:37/30:29

Argumentation Specialist
Get ready to be sadly disappointed.

Professor David Zarefsky, Ph.D.
There are normative ideal standards for argumentation in the personal sphere.
It should be like a critical discussion and employ coalescent argumentation.

In practice, however:

utterances in context, not formal claims are the basic units of discourse
– incomplete sentences
– filling in the other person’s thoughts
– rely on what we think the other parties know but they do not
These allow for slippage mistakes, errors, misunderstandings, or confusion

The interaction is not devoted to resolving disagreement but simply to ending them, compliance rather than resolution.
Non-argumentative means are used: psychological pressure.

They are not interested in the merits of the disputes. Ego is a factor.

People bring baggage to discussions, for example, anxiety about the personal relationship.

Friends, relatives, and spouses can be dysfunctional.

Bring your practice of argument closer to the ideal.

Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
He is an argumentation expert. I’m so glad I found this course on the Great Courses (but I still do not like all of the catalogs they send me and the junk mail they send me–you have been warned).

= = =

p/u at

Last Lecture: The Ends of Argumentation
This lecture considers two meanings of the term “end.” It re-examines, from Lecture 5, how controversies begin by studying the conditions under which they end, but most of the lecture concerns “end” in the sense of the larger purposes that are served by the process of argumentation. Argumentation helps achieve the goals of a democratic society by cultivating the skills of critical thinking, reflective judgment, and active participation that are vital to the maintenance of a robust public sphere.

Stephen said
A party who advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it.

So why do you bristle when I challenge your beliefs on astrology or energy healing?  

Get ready to be sadly disappointed.

Yep.

  

I am ignoring untruths.

The Great Courses – Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning, 2nd Edition was nice.

But it looks like John Ralston Saul is raising a red flag against reason in Western Civilization.

Voltaire’s Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West
by John Ralston Saul

The Washington Post: “Voltaire’s Bastards is a hand grenade disguised as a book. The pages explode with insight, style, and intellectual rigor… [This book] will leave you challenged, intrigued, and at times troubled.” A phosphorescently intelligent search-and-destroy mission against the foundations of contemporary civilization. The result is a learned and devastating critique of our political, economic and cultural establishments.

= = =

Amazon Reviewer: “Analyzes the total effect of the bastardization of reason”

It takes tremendous courage to open a book with such a subtitle. It is human nature to construct an ideology based on our favorite thoughts, and then live cozily inside as master of the realm. For then we can use that ideology as shield and weapon. But then John Ralston Saul comes face to face with you, removes his glove, and with a gentleman’s flourish, whips the leather across your face. Saul is the master of gauntlet-throwing, and after one read of this hefty tome, you will be begging for more.

“The undoubted sign of a society well under control or in decline is that language has ceased to be a means of communication and has become instead a shield for those who master it.” Does this remind you of your country’s political process? Or possibly of those ivory-tower publications that you so treasure? How is it that our species has been able to use words to cloak double and triple meanings within the most seemingly innocuous sentences? Is this what we truly want?

“The structures of argument have been co-opted so completely by those who work the system that when an individual reaches for the words and phrases which he senses will express his case, he finds that they are already in active use in the service of power. This now amounts to a virtual dictatorship of vocabulary.”

The Inquisition, Machiavellian belief, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Holocaust can be rationally justified, says Saul. The tools of rationality provide the means to any desired end. Men participated in these events of their own free will, and even added their input to make said processes more `efficient’.

“The Inquisitors were the first to formalize the idea that to every question there is a right answer. The answer is known, but the question must be asked and correctly answered. Relativism, humanism, common sense, and moral beliefs were all irrelevant to this process because they assume doubt. Since the Inquisitors knew the answer, doubt was impossible. Process, however, was essential, for efficient governance and process required that questions be asked in order to produce the correct answer.”

Is it worth having the tools of reason if they can be manipulated to cause the deaths of 200 million human beings?

We all know the answer, as gut-wrenching as it may be… regardless, we can’t disassociate our minds from reason any more than we can live without lungs.
So how do we move forward? How do we evolve with such a legacy behind and such uncertainty ahead?

First, says Saul, we must remember:
“Memory is always the enemy of structure. The latter flourishes upon method and is frustrated by content. Our need to deny the amorality of reason ensured that memory would be the first victim of the new structures.”

Secondly, we open our eyes. Who is it that truly controls our society and its governance? Saul has correctly identified the “men behind the men”, the counselors and courtiers whom our leaders turn to for advice, and the bureaucrats, none of whom are elected or held to accountability by our constitution. These puppeteers, say Saul, are the “technocrats” who co-opt reason for limited ends: “In the context of the technocratic mind, truth, like history and events, is what suits the interests of the system or the game plan of the man in charge.”

Thirdly, we do not allow rationality to freeze our minds and our humanity in the cement of process. We employ skepticism (not cynicism) to constantly keep our eyes fresh. When skepticism reveals doubt, we employ common sense and morality, neither of which can or should be defined by, you guessed it, rationality.

Saul is not an enemy of reason. Quite the opposite, his purpose here is to rescue reason from those who fly its banner upon high while secretly using it to shine their shoes.

And how does Saul go about making his argument without using… argument? His method is brilliant. He has constructed a book that reads like a great speech, an enthralling lecture. Saul is discursive… he introduces literally dozens of seemingly unrelated subjects, draws truth from each, and makes his points without needing to build upon the pages before. Saul doesn’t lead you from point A to point Q, as his enemies would; he simply enlightens you on many topics and allows your mind to form the connections… a truly satisfying experience.

This book is a fine wine, with the strong tang of truth. These pages are filled with aphorism and information on the widest variety of topics: national defense, economics, television, the Supreme Court, warfare, Congress, science, and celebrity; all of these cloths are woven with the same fundamental threads. Saul unmasks many clandestine operations, most of which are still being played out today. Your hunger for knowledge will be greatly satisfied (almost satiated) here. Page one will be distinguished as an important point in your life, and we all know how precious such eye-opening works are.

Steefen said
Lecture 20: Validity and Fallacies II

This lecture continues the discussion of general errors in reasoning that was begun in Lecture 19 with the treatment of vacuity. We examine deficiencies in relevance and discuss fallacies. The lecture concludes by reviewing two challenges to understanding fallacies. One suggests that arguments are valid or fallacious depending on their context; the other suggests that fallacies should be understood as errors of procedure rather than form.

Deficiencies in Relevance

Ad Hominem – against the person

Appeal to Authority (outside expertise or has no basis for reaching the conclusion)

Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon Effect) Popularity by itself is not a warrant

Appeal to Tradition can be used to block consideration of change without engaging the argument

Appeals to Ignorance (assumption a claim is true because it cannot be shown to be false or vice versa)

Appeals to Inappropriate Emotion

Threats

pick up at 9:23

  

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called “comparing apples and oranges.”

Something about the author, Bo Seo:

Bo Seo is a two-time world champion debater and a former coach of Harvard College Debating Union.

The Four W’s:

1. What’s the point you are trying to make?
2. Why is the argument you are offering is true?
3. When has it happened before (evidence, examples, case studies)?
4. Why does that matter?

pick up at 22:25 / 45:47

Bo Seo
Conflict/Confrontation aversion does not have to be lack of self confidence.

It could be a lack of confidence in others to operate at the level of argumentation which involves grace, respond, improve/sharpen their argument in response to a criticism.

Interviewer
Rebuttal is a form of acknowledgement

Bo Seo
Worthy of attention and the effort

Interviewer
Rebuttal has to be responsive

Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Impromptu, extemporaneous–but measured and edifying

That is why the interviewer titled the interview, “Can debating make you a better listener?”

Pick up at 30:29