There are no logical arguments. Tautologies, contradictions and deductions show nothing or else show facts that are already in full view.

There are no scientific arguments. Science deals in facts.

Then let us be square, for argument’s sake. Argument is about raising voices, descending fists, and lighting fuses.

Sure there are, what else would you call an argument that results in some logical conclusion? Tautologies, contradictions, deductions, etc. show the scope and manner of ‘knowledge’ held about a thing as well as how it is perceived. Those are tools of human reason by design, they are used to justify what we ‘know’, not necessarily to discover anything new. That is the arena of speculation, wherein arguments are invaluable.

The desired end goal is objective truth, or ‘fact’, but the means to that end often involve abstraction, experimentation, imagination, creativity, speculation, theory, hypotheses, etc. Science “deals” in much more than just “facts” (which I take to mean objective truth). All scientific facts must be falsifiable, so scientific arguments are not only useful but necessary in the way of scientific fact. Argumentation is a means by which we validate and refine our objective truths. Galileo, for example, argued scientific fact and look what we believe now. If it can’t be argued, it can’t be scientific. There are no absolute or universal “facts” as such, even for science. We are all bound by perspective to some degree, meaning all of our scientific facts are subject to interpretation.

Sure, but for what purpose? Argument is about refinement of ‘knowledge’.

I’m inclined to agree with statiktech, and I will add the following.

It comes down to a matter of definition. A “logical argument” is just what we call a series of propositions that adhere to a system of rules for discourse, something like the following:

All Xs are Y.
This is an X.
Therefore, this is Y.

We have agreed - as a community, as a culture of thought - to call this, and things like it, “logical arguments”.

If you want to say there are no such things as scientific arguments, very well, but you have to grant science the use of logical arguments as an indispensible tool for doing science.

And I agree that the great majority of arguments are “about raising voices, descending fists, and lighting fuses”, but this happens along side - or at least is compatible with - the foregoing consideration.

Are we talking arguing, discussing or debating? if its arguing then I have to agree with the OP because arguing is a form of violence. Arguing is loud , chest beating, threatening and just all around far too emotional to gain much sense out of anything that comes out of anyone’s brain.

If that were truly the case, nobody would ever change their mind because of a discussion, since everything that was discussed was either useless information or already apparent. However, we know that people DO sometimes change their minds through the course of a discussion, and that fact negates your theory.

It really doesn’t matter as an “argument” is all of those things–

The tone of an argument really depends on how it is approached. If approached in anger or resentment, chances are the argument will seem more violent. An argument that adheres to the standards of logic and reason we’ve established would likely be far more productive - logically - than an argument that is emotionally charged, but that doesn’t make either any less of an argument. Arguing is not a form of violence, to be sure. Arguments can become violent, but not by nature or necessity.

I think the term you are looking for is “altercation”, though I’d think that to be included under the umbrella of argument as well. However, altercations do hold an implication of heated, or emotionally charged, dispute by nature.

Indeed. I have a theory here to take your point even further. There exist no universals, even in terms of what we regard as ‘fact’. Therefore, nothing perceived as fact about a thing can really be assumed until that fact has been established. In other words, we have no facts that are absolutely or universally perceptible by nature – nothing is “already in full view”. Facts are established by being brought to one’s attention, and even then we are talking about aspects of a thing rather than a thing-in-itself (a thing in its totality). This is why argumentation is undoubtedly useful and practical. We balance out differing perspectives to produce a “full view” of something. Arguments produce that balance. So, as Humpty said, arguments can produce new, or otherwise different, conclusions because all parties involved in an argument are sharing a unique perspective (which includes a unique interpretation that brings more variables into consideration).

:smiley: Sure that is what the dictionary says it is I know that, but lets talk reality here. The average human sees the three very differently. You either have a discussion, debate or argue with your friend, mate or family. In layman’s terms those three hold very different values. If you argue with your mate is it ever polite, calm and rational? Nope, You two are fighting verbally and it does tend to get verbally abusive. Verbal abuse is violence to an extent. You don’t go to your friend and say my wife and I had a discussion and now I am ,blah blah … No you say you had an argument with your wife. If your spouse and you discuss things such as bills and kids and such and how to handle the household you would not say you argued with her/him if there was no animosity. You would say my wife and I discussed how we are to pay for this or do that or whatever…

For arguing and violence: Example: You may not actually kick your friend’s dumb ass but, the threat of it says you have envisioned doing so. There lies the is a form of violence.

You are quite right, but it has to be taken in context. On a philosophy board such as ILP, when one mentions “argument”, it is not uncommon to take that in terms of the logical definition - that is to say, in the field logic, an ‘argument’ just means a deduction from a set of premises to a set of conclusions (to wit, my example above about all Xs being Y).

This is my point though. The tone of the argument is our means of distinction, not the content. The value of an argument is in its purpose and sometimes the result. Your designations are a matter of preference. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

To say you like t-shirts is a generalized statement, for instance. There are tons of designations among t-shirts, which you value according to preference. However, they are all still t-shirts. Any reference to t-shirts in general would implicate the variations of “t-shirt” by definition.

In the same sense, the OP talks about “Argument”. Altercations are a form of argument, but no less an argument – the value you place on the particular designations is your preference. Values are about as universal as layman’s terms in this context (not at all). All in all, I don’t even really see how your point is relevant because you are talking specifically about violent or emotionally charged arguments, which usually have some invested interest that takes priority over logic. On the other hand, logic is the primary interest, and guideline, of scientific argumentation.

what happens when you lack all of the facts?

…then there is no dealing with anything. That’s what I mean when I say if there are no answers, there are no questions. Questions are born from the answers you’ve been given.

Argument is about cherry-picking a fact in service of another.

Why do people argue if everyone agrees on everything? That’s weird, huh

Now that’s true. We start with premises that are, as such, unargued. (but still, one would like to pick premises that others are likely to grant).

Not at all. There are arguments about the status of certain logical processes, what makes ‘necessity’ necessity and so on - certainly in modal logic. What is the relation between logical and metaphysical possibility? What is the status of knowledge and metaknowledge? Why does the ontological argument keep rolling along?

No. Science deals in paradigms and models. Science draws conclusions. There is no bare scientific fact outside of a modelled reality.

I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean, but I think you are describing one possible aspect of what can be considered “argument”. I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you don’t actually believed all arguments can be boiled down to that explanation. Even still, you never answered my question–

For what purpose?

Are you attempting to characterize all manner of “argument” as unproductive intellectual masturbation for the sake of egoistic shits & giggles?

Arguing must be about persuasion, cherry-picking, assembling the facts, of course. Otherwise we can have nothing to ague about as everything is in full view.

What I haven’t said is that arguing isn’t about facts. It’s about justifying a framework or paradigm for facts. We use facts to justify our framework. Once our framework is accepted then we have won the argument and everyone else is killed by our bomb.

What is a fact outside a framework? Facts only make sense within a framework.

If everything were in “full view” we would have no use for instruments which allow us to perceive that which is not naturally perceptible, or logic that extends beyond the bounds of experience.

I think it is the other way around. A proposition, for example, is a statement of the subject of an argument, in a philosophical context. Something specific is then postulated or theorized as true or false – that is a statement of ‘fact’ to be justified by use of a preexisting framework. The framework is usually recognized, or assumed, before the thesis. The task is making one’s statement fit into a framework – not by re-inventing a it, but by reinterpreting it.

I don’t think many arguments even result in the adoption or change of framework, but rather a new perspective on one that we’ve already accepted.