I find not only the essay itself delightful but the fact that there are apparently many people around still (as the comments which have already come in show) who are still able and willing to argue sensibly, politely and in an informed manner over serious things! Many thanks, Paul. Mind if I link your blog to mine?
How to Disagree
231–238 of 238 posts
Re: How to Disagree
#232One type Paul hasn't mentioned here is the who-are-you-to-talk. Particularly when responding to a moral argument, plenty of people love to point out how the author herself may have transgressed at some stage in life. It is as if honest confessor has no business opining strongly against what he once did. This appears to me as the most tangential of all forms of disagreement. Thoughts?
Re: How to Disagree
#233Personally, I think the essay is a poor abbreviation of "A List of Fallacious Arguments" with too much emphasis on eristics and not enough on human nature and psychology.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
Then again, the essay was written with a specific audience in mind. As it happens, I'm pretty sure I'm more a part of that audience than not.
Re: How to Disagree
#234EXXXXCELLENT. Thank you. Got here from Unfair Doctrine blog. Sail on!
Re: How to Disagree
#235EXXXXCELLENT. Thank you. Got here from Unfair Doctrine blog. Sail on!
Re: How to Disagree
#236Who the hell does this guy think he is? A background in programming does not make somebody qualified to broadly classify and stereotype as invalid entire classes of arguments. Frankly the entire piece can be summarised as a self-gratifying ego inflationary tripe that serves only to reinforce the authors misguided belief that people care enough about what he says to discount anecdotal evidence and millenia of debating technique evolution.
Can someone else continue through levels 4-7 ?
Re: How to Disagree
#237[SIZE=3][B][URL=http://www.watches-replicas.com/]Replica Watches[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][B][URL=http://www.bagsbrand.com/]Replica Designer Handbags[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][B][URL=http://www.watches-collection.com/]Replica Watches[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][B][URL=http://www.wholesale-watches.org/]Wholesale Replica Watches[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][B][URL=http://www.watchespage.net/]Replica Watches[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][B][URL=http://www.cnreplicas.com/]Replica Handbags[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][B][URL=http://www.watchesprice.net/]Replica Watches[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][B][URL=http://www.replica-watch-shopping.com/]Replica Watch[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][B][URL=http://www.wholesale-watches.org/philip-stein-watches.html]Philip Stein Watches[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][B][URL=http://www.watchesprice.net/Baume-Mercier-Watches.html]Baume & Mercier Watches[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][B][URL=http://www.wholesale-watches.org/bvlgari-watches.html]Fake Bvlgari Watches[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][B][URL=http://audemars-piguet.hotwatch.org/]Fake Audemars Piguet Watches[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][B][URL=http://www.watchespage.net/Breitling-Watches.html]Replica Accutron Watch[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][B][URL=http://www.aaa-replica-watch.com/Replica_TAG_Heuer.html]Fake TAG Heuer Watch[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][B][URL=http://www.aaa-replica-watch.com/Replica_Ebel.html]Ebel Watch[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][B][URL=http://www.replica031.com/Replica_Watches/tag_heuer_replica_...]TAG Heuer Replica Watch[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][B][URL=http://www.fashion163.com/Chanel.html]Replica Chanel Watches[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][B][URL=http://burett.watches-collection.com/]Fake Burett Watch[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][B][URL=http://oris-watches.pxhelp.com/]Oris Replica Watch[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][B][URL=http://www.watcheshot.com/Franck-Muller.html]Franck Muller Watches[/URL] [/B][/SIZE]
Re: How to Disagree
#238This is all very well. However, an argument can be based on sound principles and be can be totally supportable, and yet due to limited speaking or writing abilities of the adherent, not be convincing. Of course the other is also true, a good writer or speaker can successfully convince a reader or listener of a totally false premise.
I see several skills necessary to successfully and accurately lay out a position. They are:
1. Ability to write or speak 2. Depth of knowledge about the subject 3. Ability to listen to or read material and understand it to a depth beyond the superficial. 4. Ability to analyse--this implies an IQ at least as high as the speaker or writer. 5, Access to additional material pertinent to the subject 6. A world view relatively free from preconceived notions of reality.
I am reminded that when I have arguments about politics, conservative versis liberal; ie which is a better philosophy--the question has to be asked, compared to what, for what purpose, etc. The argument to me can have no resolution.