Good Arguments (Autumn Reading Group, session #2)

This is part 2 of the book summary for the Philosophy Kingston Meetup reading group on the book Good Arguments.  Part 1 summary is here.

This my summary of some themes and issues from Chapters 4-6.

First, two related videos that might be of interest are:

#1.  Rhetoric in communication/ argumentation

#2.  How dirty debaters win against better opponents 

Chapter 4:  RHETORIC

Seo describes the disagreement between Socrates and Gorgias concerning the value and function of rhetoric (the art of persuasive communication).  Socrates gives the example of a doctor and rhetorician when it comes to medicine.  The former has knowledge about what will actually treat the health malady of the patient, whereas the latter may just engage in flattery, impressive words and a confident speech to convince the masses to consume some fake elixir to cure the health malady.  For the critics of sophistry like Socrates, rhetoric is hallow and pretentious speech, imprecise and irrational.  We should instead engage in “straight talk”, with “no spin”.  Seo responds that rhetoric has a legitimate and important place to play in argument, because of the apathy and biases of the listener.  Getting someone to change their mind, or revise their beliefs, is hard to do.  “HOW” a debater conveys their message is just as important as WHAT they convey.  One’s mannerism, tone and pace, moving the listener by appealing to their emotions, etc. are all important aspects of rhetoric and winning an argument contends Seo. 

Chapter 5  QUIET:  How to know when to disagree

In life we must pick our battles wisely, to be judicious about determining when to enter into a disagreement.  Sometimes it would be ill-advised to engage in a debate and argument with someone or about a specific topic.  Seo offers the following checklist for gauging whether an argument has a good change of going well:

(1)   the disagreement is real.  That is, there is an actual difference of opinion vs one or both parties simply wanting a quarrel and thus are in search of a topic they can quarrel about.   

(2)   the disagreement is important.  That is, the difference is important enough to justify a disagreement.  We should reflect on why the disagreement is worthy of debate-  perhaps it touches on core values we care about, or it is an opponent we love and respect so we want to better understand their position, etc.  We should not enter into disagreements that are motivated by pride or defensiveness. 

(3)   the disagreement should be specific.  A very general or vague topic (e.g. “the economy”) will not enable both sides to make progress in the allotted time. You cannot debate everything.

(4)   the goals of the two sides are aligned.  That is, the reason for engaging in the disagreement are aligned (thought not necessarily identical).  For example, I might enter the debate to try to change your mind, and you to gain a new understanding of the topic.  Those goals are aligned.  But if I start the disagreement because I want to express my anger or simply to hurt your feelings then engaging in such a disagreement is ill-advised. 

Can you think of examples in your own personal or professional life where you entered into disagreements that contravened this check list?  How would you handle things differently now, if at all?

 

Chapter 6:  Self Defence:  How to Defeat a Bully

This chapter focuses on The Art of Being Right by Arthur Schopenhauer.  Schopenhauer defined the “eristic dialectic” as the art of winning an argument whether one is in the right or the wrong.  And he identified 38 different techniques typically employed by debaters employing this art- such as changing the topic, goading an opponent into anger, claiming victory despite defeat, etc. 

Seo contends we must know what the dishonest tricks are so that we can defeat the opponent with their own tricks.  Clean debaters risk being out maneuvered by bad debaters if they do not know how to combat these bad tactics.  When both sides of a debate are skilled in the eristic dialectic then mutual deterrence ensures a good argument is more likely to take place (as no side will act like a “bully”).

Seo highlights 4 types of personas a bully may adopt, and details how to respond to these personas.  These are:

 

(1)             The “Dodger”: someone who never responds directly to an argument.  Instead they “pivot”, meaning they do not completely ignore the point, but instead comment on a broader argument but not the specifics they should address (e.g. ad hominem).  Response:  pursue the original argument, don’t let them ignore the original subject.

 

(2)             The “Twister”:  someone who misrepresents arguments.  For example, they construct a straw person argument that expands the epistemic burdens the  original argument must meet.  Response:  correct the record and misrepresentation.

 

(3)             The “Wrangler”:  someone who is great at re-buttle but never puts forth their own argument.  They employ a strategy of just always attack the opponent’s argument.  In doing so they always moving the goal posts for their opponents.  Response:  pin down the wrangler to a position.  Ask questions like “what do you belief?” or “what do you mean by that?” and then hold them to those answers.

 

 

(4)             The “Liar”:  someone who makes statements they believe are false to mislead people.  Do not respond to this by charging “That is a lie!” for such a tactic is not sufficient to defeat them.  Instead, it makes you sound emotional and appear desperate- resorting to personal attacks.  Response:  Prove the falsehood is a lie by engaging in what Soe calls the two-fold strategy of “plug and replace”.  “Plug” the lie into a broader view of the world and explain what problems arise.  Then replace the lie with the truth, and explain why this is more likely the reality.

 

Looking forward to our discussions and debates!

Cheers,

Colin