A Gentleman's Primer to Genteel Disputation - OG Myth-Weavers

Notices


General Discussion

All-purpose section for discussions that don’t clearly belong in any of the other categories.


A Gentleman's Primer to Genteel Disputation

   
Since a lot of issues on the site invariably boil down to debate and disputation of one sort or the other, I thought it would be helpful if we assembled what we knew about the actual meat and bones of how disputative logic works. I'm referring to the usual setup of a proposed hypothesis that depends on one or more premises, is modified by certain parameters, and supported by justifications and examples. As part of such an endeavour, I propose to assemble a general guideline to how a logical argument is established, how it is called into question, and how such queries are to be rebutted in a manner stressing logic, proper debating methodology, and professional detachment.

I would also want to include a list of commonly-made errors and fauxs pas: ad hominem, strawman arguments, Godwin's Law and so on, as well as generally-permissible-but-considered-bad-form stuff like reductio ad absurdum.

Of course, in such an endeavour I can only rely on contribution, correction, and criticism from the community - I want to establish something of a community standard that people can point to. I mean, sure, people will want to diverge from established protocol when things get personal or just out of pique, but I think it will be helpful to have a standard to refer to in order to establish that they are in fact practicing bad form.

Does anyone else think this sounds like a good idea? I'm sure it sounds ambitious and maybe a little high-handed, but I hope it will help improve the quality of posts and the experience of posters who will be more free to discuss and debate without straying into trolling, flaming, or other punishable transgressions.

-assemble a general guideline to how a logical argument is established,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverlocke
Placeholder Post.
-how it is called into question,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nocturnal
You made a thread with nothing in it?
-and how such queries are to be rebutted in a manner stressing logic, proper debating methodology, and professional detachment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironblue
He put the words, 'Placeholder Post' in the thread, leading me to observe something as opposed to nothing in the thread, and thusly disprove Nocturnal's statement.
I'm doing pretty good so far! Wait...

-I would also want to include a list of commonly-made errors and fauxs pas: ad hominem,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironblue
disprove Nocturnal's statement.
-strawman arguments,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverlocke
-I would also want to include a list of commonly-made errors and fauxs pas: ad hominem,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironblue
disprove Nocturnal's statement.
-Godwin's Law,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironblue
Heil!
as well as generally-permissible-but-considered-bad-form stuff like reductio ad absurdum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironblue
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverlocke
Placeholder Post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nocturnal
You made a thread with nothing in it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironblue
He put the words, 'Placeholder Post' in the thread, leading me to observe something as opposed to nothing in the thread, and thusly disprove Nocturnal's statement.

I'm doing pretty good so far! Wait...
Who knew I was so bad at Genteel Disputation?

I get it, you thought your thread title was so brilliant that someone would surely have stolen it by the time you wrote your post, if you didn't leave a placeholder to secure it.

reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly legitimate method of refuting a preposition.

It's a nice idea and I don't want to toss water on it but I don't think anybody can accurately guess what will end up invoking punishment around here.

Now, to be honest, the very fact that someone is willing to take time out of his life and start a thread like this (in a fairly well-written manner, I might add), marks the myth-weavers forum apart from most.

I heartily approve.

All the same, flinging around verb phrases in Latin and all those fancy 'laws' and 'axioms' is no substitute for just general well-meaning. Even the most cursory politeness and patience towards other people can engender a surprisingly polite and patient reaction in kind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nocturnal View Post

reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly legitimate method of refuting a preposition.
When it is polite, yes. Also, I avoid it because it's easy to misinterpret, and often unescesary. It's most useful when you draw someone's argument to it's logical conclusion without the fanciness. Otherwise, there are (from a rhetorical point of view) better ways to adress the issue with less risk of tension.




Avoid attacks on character is also a big one. While the name of the thread makes this kind of redundant, it bears saying if only as an introduction. A big thing that goes along with that is avoiding taking an argument in a thread personally or construing it as a personal attack (or painting it in that way to get sympathy). Read carefully. Read twice, and if you have a strong personal stake in the argument, ask yourself whether you should be arguing about it at all. I think a dbate should be on something where both parties have something to say that the other finds useful or can agree to or where there is a lack of clarity. That is, if it's a yes no issue, both parties had better be making substantive points. If it's just an agree to disagree thing that won't be changed by the debate (and doesn't get any useful points out) both parties should just give up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kemosabe View Post
Doesn't the Myth-Weaver's Rules found over in the wiki HERE cover this subject and set the standard well enough?
The Myth-Weaver's Rules of conduct set the bar rather low for the purposes of meaningful discussion and disputation, in my opinion.

The list consists almost exclusively of what not to do in order to maintain a bare minimum of civility.
It fails to address logical fallacies, and perhaps more importantly, proper logical forms and evidenciary responsibilities, used in 'genteel disputation'.

In theory, this should be a good idea.

But be aware that once emotions flare, 'logical fallacies' = 'things I say to make myself look smarter than the other guy'. Many a rude discussion has gotten ruder once such terms are tossed around in place of simple common sense and civility.

In my more idealistic days, I might have been game .

All that being said, I've nothing against it, and would likely read more about it.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2024-03-28 10:38:20am local time
Myth-Weavers Status