On what authority do we argue?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Okay, I’m trying this again because my ‘logic’ thread became too hard for me to follow…

I argue with people, and they join me in arguing. Other people do this all the time in many other contexts - science, politics, religion, and so on. They all seem to be working on more or less the same rules of how to argue. Now, some are very sloppy and argue in self-contradictory ways, and the most conscientious of us will also make logical errors and get tripped up by fallacies from time to time. This is okay, because these things can be pointed out and the arguing can continue.

But now and then, someone will try to get a leg up by dismissing reason altogether with a statement such as ‘oh that’s just your logic’. (To address a point someone made in the previous thread, I’m talking specifically about the case where someone tries to dismiss formal logic, not just an idiosyncratic set of beliefs they may assume I hold.)

Now, my question is how to repond to this in a way that doesn’t require us both to have studied philosophy. It seems like a foul, but I can’t quite say why. My intuition says that such a person has, simply by engaging in an argument, tacitly accepted the same rules of reason as me, but has abruptly decided to bail out (perhaps because they’re losing the argument). What is the source of this implicit agreement that there is something called ‘argument’ that we are all willing, without question, to engage in? Where does it come from, and on what authority do we do it?

I am not looking for a technical argument here, I’m sure there must be a simple answer to this. The notion of rational thought seems to be a basic pillar of eveything we do. Even those who do not argue rationally at least believe they do, and try to defend their own wooly brand of reason. The point is that they play the game, however imperfectly, and so we can engage with them. But what is the game, where does it come from, and why do people engage in it without question?

2

’

3

This comment sounds like a copout to me. It says nothing. I’m not sure why there is anything in such a comment to respond to. It sounds like your opponent has reached a dead end. There is just no content to such a statement. It sounds like you have won, but that your opponent simply does not want to admit this.

4

Hi markh. It sounds like you are viewing dialogue in terms of an adversarial argument. As an alternative, try “arguing” in less competitive terms. Philosophy is not a contest of “who is wiser,” but a serious and meaningful inquiry into knowledge. Passion

5

That same thought occurred to me, passion. But it looks as though more than philosophy is being argued about. Sounds like recreational arguing to me. Winning is fun.

6

I hear you faust. Winning can be fun; but sometimes I seem to learn more when I’m not winning. :slight_smile: Passion

7

I tend to look at “arguing” from the viewpoint of renaming it “discussion” - the sharing of viewpoints without the need for criticism - a great way to explore - to discover the uniqueness of the “other” - rather than wallowing in the boredom of my rightousness.

8

I agree, but I can’t explain why! That’s the question - I don’t feel I can just say it’s a copout, I need to be able to explain why (to myself as well as to others).

About your other comment, this isn’t about recreation but I am trying to defend a position. Sorry if that offends you!

9

Here’s a way we could think about argument: conversational war. I think most political science is BS, but I’m going to borrow from the discipline for this.

In political science, the state of the international system is anarchy. There is no international authority.

If we think of personal philosophy or beliefs as equivalent to a political system within a country, then arguing is ‘communication by another means’, or conversational war. Since each person is their own ‘country’, there is no set of rules governing the behavior of interaction between each person, including a lack of rules for arguing.

We may respect some people more than others and have a sort of honor code directing the argument, like I’m not going to call you a poo-poo head. Think of this like the Geneva Accords of argumentation; you agree there’s certain places you’re not going to go. Other people may not respect you, though, and they won’t follow these rules of conduct. If you have a formal debate with rules and a moderator, think of that like the UN and close to something resembling a set of international rules…but since that’s not what you’re talking about we won’t go there.

Along with the lack of an honor code, there’s a lack of even what constitutes a good argument. Someone may argue by saying, “You were born on the 5th of January so you’re wrong about whether global warming is real or not.” This is probably an illogical claim. Unfortunately, while it’s really easy to win a physical war with someone who makes illogical tactical decisions, winning an argument against someone refusing to acknowledge he’s being illogical is impossible.

So, to answer your question in this long ramble of a post, there is no implicit agreement that there is such a thing as an argument, we just go to war trying to prove our point. There can be rules, but those have to be agreed upon by the members of the argument. The authority for what constitutes a ‘good argument’ rests on those in it, much like the authority for what constitues a ‘good war’ rests on people agreeing to a certain set of rules of warfare.

While it may be beneficial to go to war with someone who doesn’t abide by the Geneve Accords, it is ineffectual to have an argument with someone who can’t agree to some set of rules. There can be no winner if both sides don’t have an open mind and adherance to a set of known facts and a set way of looking at those facts.

I’m only half serious by the way. I was just bored and this is what came to mind.

10

Arguments occur out of uncertainty. No one argues that mountains exist in Colorado, or that New York city is in NY. People can argue these, but the other side tends to just be quiet and feel sorrow for the other side.

But on many other matters, not so clearly understood, arguments occur. I view them not so much as war, but more like a sale. Your job is to ‘sell’ your side.

If I were in an argument and the other side said about X, that Y was just my logic, I’d respond by pulling them in against their own argument. This is a very deadly technique.

For example

Me: Pres Bush is the smartest man ever. He will see that overthrow happens all ‘evil’(for you faust) governments and establish peaceful democracies in their place. This will lead to less violence and all people want democracy anyway.

Them: What? Good God, are you for real? Thats just your logic that all people want democracy.

Me: Thats just your logic, that my logic is all people want Democracy.

Them: pause…

Them: Well some people don’t want Democracy!

Me: (thinking victory)

Argument proceeds…

11

It’s a copout because it doesn’t address your argument.

Or, maybe you’re a lousy arguer and they’re just being nice to you.

12

A lousy argument has sent more than one man to millions, and many more to state administered death. Lousy arguments are powerful!

Philosophers are like the salesman reading from a script.

Or maybe like those Quant traders who were screaming " shit, this isn’t supposed to occur in 100,000 years"…

Professional argumentation is an art. (in mho of course!)

lol

13

This is getting rather circular. Let me have one more try. This is pretty much the actual conversation…

Me: “Healing by waving your hands over someone is not worth believing. There is no evidence for it, and there is no known mechanism by which it might work.”
Him: “Well they might discover in 50 years that rays come out of your hands!” (I think this is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam.)
Me: “But you could say that about anything - it doesn’t follow logically that it’s worth believing!”
Him: “Oh, but that’s just your logic!”

14

’

15

Mark - I would only point out that medicine is full of examples of treatments that worked long before there was any theoretical justification for those treatments. Many have those theoretical underpinnings now.

“Not worth believing” is not exactly ineluctable logic. Neither is “no known mechanism”.

16

On the authority of our individual egos.

17

Looks like you played his game- he set you up.

Your second response could have been to turn the tables based on what he said. What he said actually can serve warrant to your first claim.

The problem you have with arguing based on shared logic, is logic isn’t easily defined. And he used that against you. For example

Women like men with brains.
Mathematicians have brains.
A Mathematician gets lots of ladies or girls like mathematicians.

No one in his right mind defends that claim, though it IS logical.

Thales is a man
All men die.
Thales will die or is dead.

We all defend this one, though.

This is your problem.

18

Can you elaborate on that? I don’t know what I could have said that would have helped. What I did say is a fairly standard sceptic’s argument, which I think is just pointing out the fallacy.

Well no, but this brings me back to my original question. How come we all prepared to pretend the rules of argument are well-defined until it all starts to go wrong? I would expect someone who holds the ‘sceptical to logic’ position to hold it all the time, and so I’d never even be able to draw him into an argument in the first place. Maybe this is the answer - that simply by entering into an argument, we commit to the assumption of common ground. And so my response ought to be that denying such common ground at a later stage is disingenuous.

(By the way, I don’t agree that your first example is logical. I don’t know enough about logic to contradict it formally, but it’s clear that the ‘brain’ is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being liked. Manhood, on the other hand, is necessary and sufficient for death.)

19

Philosophy is the revolution in which reason could be based upon no predetermined source. It is superfluous, to say that it is a simple act of comparison as opposed to “divining” anything through an authority.

Theistic. Linear.-

Mysterious penmanship → Scripture → Ruler → Law → Enforcement.

Empirical. Circular.-

Argument → Ethics → Law → Enforcement → Argument.

Everyone said that they didn’t have a reason unless God said. Socrates happened to be around when Homer was that God. Socrates vs. Homer. Babbly eccentric citizen vs. Imaginary near-omnipotent ruler. Sounds like a close call. He died in the battle, but won the war against religion . . . for now.

It’s a tricky battle because the same process can either be abused or can be submissive to more powerful positions.

“Philosophy is God. As long as a philosophy professor says it, it’s true.” Abused. Unacceptable to tenets of philosophy (whatever tenet is dubiously there).

“Philosophy is not God. If your Scripture is God . . . umm, I guess philosophy loses.” Submissive. Acceptable to tenets of philosophy (whatever tenet is dubiously there). But the more arrogant jerk seems to win.

In summary, I cannot argue Markh sufficiently. I can only offer an antithesis. All choices require a leap of faith. Wheather that’s a trivially random synaptic electrical burst or some greater unknown force. The problem is still the same.

You practice philosophy because you simply believe in it.

20

It is only static from a non-temporal perspective.

The second argument is actually argument’, since it has been modified by the process.

Argument → Ethics → Law → Enforcement → Argument’ → Ethics → Law → Enforcement → Argument’’ → […] → Argument^n.

Now since we weren’t privy to the original argument (our deepest ancestors had that privilege) all we can do is engage in the process.