Everything I know about arguing I learned from Monty Python http://urielw.com/refs/montyargc.htm
No you didn't.
How to Teach a Child to Argue
31–40 of 57 posts
Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue
#32For what it's worth, Aristotle was the first to make this division of the three 'modes of persuasion' or pisteis, at Rhetoric 1.2:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Aristot.+Rh...
Or at least, this passage is the earliest attested formulation of this sort. Aristotle may have been codifying a system developed by others.
Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue
#33"And let’s face it: Our culture has lost the ability to usefully disagree." -- great point. Good article. The fact is, that kids do "run" their parents quite a bit. This approach might just bring it out in the open.
Many parents do not remember their logos, ethos, and pathos. As a result, some fall prey to red herrings, logical fallacies, and guilt-tripping.
I think that by bringing it out into the open, the ground is leveled and there is more understanding.
It is like the difference between being able to think, and being able to think about thinking.
It is the ability to reflect on conversation.
Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue
#34There's a lot of merit in what the author calls "argument by the stick", arguments in which convincing the other guy is not the primary goal. If you argue with someone in public , as in most online arguments, simply making your opponent look stupid can make the onlookers more likely to agree with you. I've seen this happen in creationism/evolution debates: the only way to win a debate with a creationist is by trounci…
It may be a useful technique at times, but I think it's more productive to establish as much common ground as possible, then highlight where each person diverges. In most cases, divergence among rational people can be traced to different priorities. I think the same would apply if discussing religion with a rational religious person (something I don't think is totally impossible). For example, here's my argument abou…
Okay! A well thought-out argument about religion/atheism. It's very rare thing.
I'm a theist, but the way I see it, God made atheists (or made the conditions under which atheism would occur) to get a new and important perspective on things (eg God, science, society).
The irony of it all is this: the atheists I have met are generally devout servants of God who deny his existence. And yet I hear those of suspect motives condemn atheists!
Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue
#35Growing up I was usually given my way if I could make a good persuasive case for it. I like this approach and one day when I have kids I'll probably use it with them. However I was never encouraged to be manipulative, only clear and logical. As a result, I expect that most people will respond to reason, which is far from the truth of how the world works.
Yeah I was raised in a family where logos and ethos reign supreme, pathos is personally the weakest path in an argument.
I totally agree with his parenting style, great article all around.
Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue
#36> Dorothy: “Dad, you look tired. Want to sit down?” > Me: “Thanks. Where did you have in mind?” > Dorothy: “Ben & Jerry’s.” There's a difference between argument through reason and manipulation. I think this guy is teaching his kids to be manipulative. The little dialog above shows that the daughter doesn't care a wit about how her father feels, she's just using the emotion as a point of leverage. If I had kids and t…
I wouldn't feel disappointed. I'd be delighted at the clever twist she put on the answer. The response would be to out-clever her answer: "Sure! You're inviting me so you're buying, right?"
I agree to an extent I believe that pathos is the one you don't really want to overdo with children. It's basically emotional exploitation or extortion. I would never do that to my parents out of a sense of guilt for exploiting them that way.
The overall thing is that he's teaching his kids to be critical, which is a good thing for kids to learn. But it's also important to put ground rules and let the kids know that you're the one teaching them this and to lead them on that you'd be wise to their attempts at using it on you.
Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue
#37"And let’s face it: Our culture has lost the ability to usefully disagree." -- great point. Good article. The fact is, that kids do "run" their parents quite a bit. This approach might just bring it out in the open.
Many parents do not remember their logos, ethos, and pathos. As a result, some fall prey to red herrings, logical fallacies, and guilt-tripping. I think that by bringing it out into the open, the ground is leveled and there is more understanding. It is like the difference between being able to think, and being able to think about thinking. It is the ability to reflect on conversation.
I don't know if you've seen it, but their are parents that give in to their kids requests with children rationalizing their desire for something simply with "I want it".
I think it's more ruled by the fact that they feel they owe it to their kids or that they've fostered this need in their kids to always gratify their wants. There's less emphasis on critical thinking, which is what I think the author of the post was trying to get at.
Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue
#385. Let kids win sometimes. Some parents have a problem with this. I remember a conversation where a woman volunteered that she completely suppressed her kids every time. She was absolutely proud of this fact.
I very rarely let my kids win anything. You can play games of chance or setup situations where they can win. In the situation described in the blog post it's really a judgement call for the father - if the child was able to present a good argument, then she wins. Kids whose parents let them win consistently have their world views shattered when they find out that they aren't the best at everything. These children are…
The key is "rarely" vs. "never"
Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue
#39 Credibility = Quality + Consistency
Re: How to Teach a Child to Argue
#40There's a lot of merit in what the author calls "argument by the stick", arguments in which convincing the other guy is not the primary goal. If you argue with someone in public , as in most online arguments, simply making your opponent look stupid can make the onlookers more likely to agree with you. I've seen this happen in creationism/evolution debates: the only way to win a debate with a creationist is by trounci…
It may be a useful technique at times, but I think it's more productive to establish as much common ground as possible, then highlight where each person diverges. In most cases, divergence among rational people can be traced to different priorities. I think the same would apply if discussing religion with a rational religious person (something I don't think is totally impossible). For example, here's my argument abou…
a fa laa yatafakkaruun - so won't they contemplate deeply? - the quran
a fa laa tacqiluun - so won't you use your intellect? - the quran