|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject: A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion |
 |
|
I know that the Current Events forum isn't necessarily a place for rational discussion, but maybe it's worth keeping these principles in mind? It seems like a lot of what goes on here is, like Woland once pointed out, just advertisement rather than argument for various positions. I'm sure I'm guilty of this too.
| Quote: |
1. The Fallibility Principle
When alternative positions on any disputed issue are under review, each participant in the discussion should acknowledge that possibly none of the positions presented is deserving of acceptance and that, at best, only one of them is true or the most defensible position. Therefore, it is possible that thorough examination of the issue will reveal that one's own initial position is a false or indefensible one.
2. The Truth-Seeking Principle
Each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore, one should be willing to examine alternative positions seriously, look for insights in the positions of others, and allow other participants to present arguments for or raise objections to any position held with regard to any disputed issue.
3. The Clarity Principle
The formulations of all positions, defences, and attacks should be free of any kind of linguistic confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues.
4. The Burden of Proof Principle
The burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position.
5. The Principle of Charity
If a participant's argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be expressed in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the original intention of the arguer. If there is any question about that intention or about implicit parts of the argument, the arguer should be given the benefit of any doubt in the reformulation.
'For a practical application of the principles governing good argumentation summarized in this chapter and addressed throughout the book, see the detailed critique of several popular points of view, including those of Shirley MacLaine and Ronald Reagan, in Lawrence L. Habermehl's The Counterfeit Wisdom of Shallow Minds: A Critique of Some Leading Offenders of the 1980's (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1995).
6. The Relevance Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to set forth only reasons that are directly related to the merit of the position at issue.
7. The Acceptability Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to use reasons that are mutually acceptable to the participants and that meet standard criteria of acceptability.
8. The Sufficiency Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide reasons that are sufficient in number, kind, and weight to support the acceptance of the conclusion.
9. The Rebuttal Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or the position it supports and to the strongest argument on the other side of the issue.
10. The Resolution Principle
An issue should be considered resolved if the proponent for one of the alternative positions successfully defends that position by presenting an argument that uses relevant and acceptable premises that together provide sufficient grounds to support the conclusion and provides an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or position at issue. Unless one can demonstrate that these conditions have not been met, one should accept the conclusion of the successful argument and consider the issue, for all practical purposes, to be settled. In the absence of a successful argument for any of the alternative positions, one is obligated to accept the position that is supported by the best of the good arguments presented.
11. The Suspension of Judgment Principle
If no position comes close to being successfully defended, or if two or more positions seem to be defended with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue. If practical considerations seem to require an immediate decision, one should weigh the relative risks of gain or loss connected with the consequences of suspending judgment and decide the issue on those grounds.
12. The Reconsideration Principle
If a successful or at least good argument for a position is subsequently found by any participant to be flawed in a way that raises new doubts about the merit of that position, one is obligated to reopen the issue for further consideration and resolution.
From Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer |
http://www.ukpoliticsmisc.org.uk/usenet_evidence/argument.html
I know I could definitely do better with most of these principles.
Any thoughts? (I'm betting this post will sink like a stone.  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: Re: A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| (I'm betting this post will sink like a stone.) |
Pushes sinking stone almost to the top of the mountain....
| gang ah jee wrote: |
7. The Acceptability Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to use reasons that are mutually acceptable to the participants and that meet standard criteria of acceptability.
|
I think this is one that often causes problems. To reduce it close to the absurd, I will use an example of the most useless type of argument, proselytization. Those who do this will consider quotes from the bible to be sufficient proof, while those on the other side will opine that quoting from a work of fiction is not good argumentation.
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
13) Proof or overwhelming evidence should be enough to make people change their opinion. (you would think).
14) Its possible for one person to be right and the 100 arguing against him to be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
13) Proof or overwhelming evidence should be enough to make people change their opinion. (you would think).
|
My problem with this is that nothing, outside of mathematics, can be proven. This link will provide some basis for understanding this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Inductive_categorical_inference
and is the reason why some courts use the softer "beyond reasonable doubt" as the benchmark.
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mnhnhyouh wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
13) Proof or overwhelming evidence should be enough to make people change their opinion. (you would think).
|
My problem with this is that nothing, outside of mathematics, can be proven. This link will provide some basis for understanding this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Inductive_categorical_inference
and is the reason why some courts use the softer "beyond reasonable doubt" as the benchmark.
h |
Which is why he/she said "or", no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Problem is the emotional always overrides the logical.
People believe what they want to. They choose what to believe regardless of the evidence, based on other "emotional" motivations. In a debate, they accept only what makes them feel good.
For example you have climate change/ global warming.
The mountain of evidence for it is blatantly obvious. But because instinctively people want to believe that everythings Ok, and that financial short term profit is better for them than the long term health of their environment, the denial continues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: Re: A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion |
|
|
| mnhnhyouh wrote: |
| gang ah jee wrote: |
7. The Acceptability Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to use reasons that are mutually acceptable to the participants and that meet standard criteria of acceptability.
|
I think this is one that often causes problems. To reduce it close to the absurd, I will use an example of the most useless type of argument, proselytization. Those who do this will consider quotes from the bible to be sufficient proof, while those on the other side will opine that quoting from a work of fiction is not good argumentation. |
Right. The different standards for evidence are incredibly problematic. An other example would be when entire fields of scientific study are given equal or lesser weight than fringe figures writing in newspaper op-eds and religious websites.
It's also a problem when information that supports a position is disregarded precisely because it supports that position and is therefore biased - the reasoning being that 1) position X is affiliated with group Y; 2) fact Z supports position X; 3) therefore, fact Z is affiliated with group Y. It's a bizarre kind of backwards causation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
