How to conduct rational argument in the logical sciences

[John Jones]

How does one conduct a rational argument in the logical sciences? First, let us make some useful technical observations:

 

There are no "logical" arguments. Tautologies, contradictions and deductions show nothing, or else show facts that are already in full view.

There are no "scientific" arguments. Science deals in facts.

Then let us be square, for argument's sake. Argument is about raising voices, descending fists, and lighting fuses.

 

On the other hand a '"rational" argument' is the technique of being persuasively polite - telling your opponent where the bomb is, and when it will go off.

Edited October 22, 2010 by John Jones

[ydoaPs]

p->q

~q

~p

 

Hmm.....logical arguments seem to work just fine. In fact, the one above is the basis for falsification through experimentation.

[John Jones]

p->q

~q

~p

 

Hmm.....logical arguments seem to work just fine. In fact, the one above is the basis for falsification through experimentation.

 

 

Experimentation is also the basis for truth. You can do this experiment now by carefully reading and understanding what I wrote, or else deny experimentation itself.

[CharonY]

False premises lead to false conclusions.

Edited October 24, 2010 by CharonY

[swansont]

False premises lead to false conclusions.

 

Invalid conclusions.

[CharonY]

Right your are. My bad.

[lemur]

There are no "scientific" arguments. Science deals in facts.

Then let us be square, for argument's sake. Argument is about raising voices, descending fists, and lighting fuses.

Um no, argumentation refers to providing defensible reason for your claims. Science cannot deal in facts alone because there must be reason in presenting the facts and argumentation about why the facts are valid to support a given conclusion.

 

On the other hand a '"rational" argument' is the technique of being persuasively polite - telling your opponent where the bomb is, and when it will go off.

Being polite or rude has nothing to do with rationality. Rudeness can certainly be offensive and off-putting, but a rational argument can be presented rudely or politely. You make it sound like rationality is a social-technique instead of an approach to knowledge with the purpose of optimizing functionality. Rationality is not about appeasement. Appeasement is more likely about circumventing rationality.

Edited October 25, 2010 by lemur

[John Jones]

John Jones, on 22 October 2010 - 08:13 PM, said: There are no "scientific" arguments. Science deals in facts.

Then let us be square, for argument's sake. Argument is about raising voices, descending fists, and lighting fuses.

 

 

'lemur' Um no, argumentation refers to providing defensible reason for your claims. Science cannot deal in facts alone because there must be reason in presenting the facts and argumentation about why the facts are valid to support a given conclusion.

 

I agree, that is pretty much what I said and meant. If Reason is about facts, then all facts are on display anyway, so Reason is not needed. Reason must, then, be about persuasion - persuasion through the way we choose our facts.

 

 

Being polite or rude has nothing to do with rationality. Rudeness can certainly be offensive and off-putting, but a rational argument can be presented rudely or politely. You make it sound like rationality is a social-technique instead of an approach to knowledge with the purpose of optimizing functionality. Rationality is not about appeasement. Appeasement is more likely about circumventing rationality.

 

 

If argument is about assembling facts, and as you re-iterate, these facts are not assembled scientifically but are assembled according to our values and functional needs, then argument is persuasion. Ultimately, argument seeks its own position. The explosion is one such argument, but there are polite ways of arguing for its detonation.

 

p->q

~q

~p

 

Hmm.....logical arguments seem to work just fine. In fact, the one above is the basis for falsification through experimentation.

 

This empirical basis for falsification would not be a logical argument.

[lemur]

I agree, that is pretty much what I said and meant. If Reason is about facts, then all facts are on display anyway, so Reason is not needed. Reason must, then, be about persuasion - persuasion through the way we choose our facts.

Reason can and should be persuasive, but persuasion is not the essence of reason. In fact, reason can be presented in a way that is not persuasive and even repulsive, but it is still right. The truth can hurt but it's still the truth. If people are being persuaded to accept reason, however, they may not be reasoning for themselves as much as they are just responding to persuasion. That would, in itself, be unreasonable thus defeating the purpose of reason.

 

If argument is about assembling facts, and as you re-iterate, these facts are not assembled scientifically but are assembled according to our values and functional needs, then argument is persuasion. Ultimately, argument seeks its own position. The explosion is one such argument, but there are polite ways of arguing for its detonation.

Why do you keep using the word "detonation." Are you planning to set off a bomb or something? You seem to be obsessed with certain vocabulary such as "argument," "assemble," and "explosion/detonation." What is the underlying strategy of your writing?

 

 

This empirical basis for falsification would not be a logical argument.

What empirical basis? For falsification of what?

 

 

 

[imatfaal]

I think Lemur is correct in asking

What is the underlying strategy of your writing?

[John Jones]

p->q

~q

~p

 

Hmm.....logical arguments seem to work just fine. In fact, the one above is the basis for falsification through experimentation.

 

 

 

How is p->q, ~q, ~p an argument? An argument for what? It's a given, one we work by, the basis of conducting an empirical observation.

 

 

You make it sound like rationality is a social-technique instead of an approach to knowledge with the purpose of optimizing functionality. Rationality is not about appeasement. Appeasement is more likely about circumventing rationality.

 

OK. So it's:

rationality/functionality vs. rhetoric/appeasement. Would it be too hasty to say that there is no overlap? or that one cannot be subsumed in the other?

 

An argument is made toward achieving a functional, useful, needed, outcome. But the way we conduct an argument is independent of the nature of that outcome. We can argue for a murder as well as a mercy killing.

 

The technique of arguing isn't "rational" because "rationality" describes an aim, but the technique of argument is independent of the arguments aims.

 

BUT MY MAIN POINT,

yet to be addressed fully, and it was a technical, self-evident point, is that

 

1) there is no prospect in logic or the sciences of describing an argument other than in terms of appeasement. This is because -

2) facts - the substance of argument - are either in full view or they are not. If facts are half-revealed then all we have is our ability to persuade others in our attempt to reveal them. You might want to expand the discussion by considering the rules or methods by which facts are assembled. I have left this up to you. I can give some pointers on this but am waiting for an attempt of some sort.

[Sisyphus]

How is p->q, ~q, ~p an argument?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens