How to Argue Pt. 1
*Trigger Warning: Different ideas certain to offend*
*Trigger Warning: Different ideas certain to offend*
Let’s talk about arguments and arguing. I’ll try to cut the
fluff and give you only the specific, ‘practical,’ details because let’s face
it: your arguments are bad—absolutely awful; and the arguments of your acquaintances
are even worse. In a previous post I walked through an example argument
relating to the glory of God and the love of God. But I realize that even there
I made basic assumptions that I should have explained, so in an attempt to make
my small corner of the world a little more logical (and in futile hopes that
the internet will become slightly more friendly and less exasperating) I offer
the following explanation.
1.
Be willing to be wrong.
2.
Understand sources of knowledge.
3.
Hear the other statement/argument.
4.
Clarify the statement/argument.
5.
Respond to the premise.
6.
Choose forwards or backwards.
7.
Make your first counter argument.
8.
Respond to the response.
9.
Repeat steps 6 & 7.
Step 1: Be willing to be wrong
Most so-called arguments are doomed from the start because of
the very simple fact that either one or more parties are not willing to be
wrong. If neither party is willing to
have their mind changed, then neither party will have their mind changed. That’s
all well and fine, but don’t deceive yourself into thinking your arguing. You’re
not; you’re making a statement. Statements are fine, but they’re not arguments.
Your stating your belief and offering that anyone who hears can adopt the belief as their own. If you
aren’t willing to be wrong, then you cannot claim the moral or intellectual
high ground by stating “I’m making a logical argument.” Furthermore, if you aren’t willing to be wrong, it indicates 1.) that you have found your ‘god,’
2.) that you probably weren’t argued into your belief, 3.) you will
not be able to convince others, 4.) you are prone to condemn others for not
believing the ‘truth’ you believe is self-evident.
It’s incredible how quickly the discussion can shift tone
when both people realize “I’m not the standard of truth; I’ve been wrong
before; lots of smart people disagree; I could be wrong.”
Most people are unwilling to be wrong because they’re afraid;
being wrong has consequences. If you are not willing to be wrong, however, then
don’t make an argument and don’t respond to an argument. Arguments
are the weapons of those who seek truth; and they are dangerous in the hands of
those who claim truth.
Step 2: Understand sources of knowledge
If you’ve made it this far, congratulations! Most people are
unwilling to even consider being
wrong about their willingness to be wrong (I’m looking at you religious/a-religious
apologists). I’m aware that some will have made it through the first step only
to consider the rest—those that plan on disregarding step 1 when they spout
their claims once again. But I’m glad you’ve made it this far too, as it at
least shows you are slightly pliable.
Fluff out of the way, the fancy word for this is “epistemology.”
It’s the answer to the question “How do I know what I know?” There are plenty
of philosophical investigations into the question, but for our purposes it will
suffice to inform you that you know what you know because of 4 sources of
knowledge.
1.
Transmission
2.
Logic
3.
Investigation
4.
Experience
I’ve changed their names to make more sense, but the idea is
still the same. (For those who want to pursue this further the categories are
usually called “Revelation, Rationalism, Discovery, and Experience.”)
Transmission is the method of knowing that comes from
information passed down to you. News fits into this category—anchors,
reporters, script writers, even video footage are all transmitted to you. It is
knowledge/raw data/beliefs that have passed from somebody or something else. Sacred texts like the Bible
or Qur’an, etc. fit into this category as well. Transmission is why you believe
the earth is round, that North Korea actually exists, etc. Easy enough, right?
Transmission can be summarized by “I heard/read.”
Logic is the method of knowing that we’re talking about. It’s
rational argument. It’s making sense between ideas. It’s understanding that a
ball can’t be both round and square at the same time; and that the ball has to
be round—not square—because that’s what the word ‘ball’ implies under normal circumstances.
Logic is the most difficult to explain because we’re talking about it while using it. So perhaps its helpful to
define logic as ‘what doesn’t fit into the other categories.’
Logic can be summarized by “I think.”
Investigation is the method for knowing that our culture thinks they most often practice while in
fact they least often practice it.
Investigation is the use of the scientific method & five senses to discern
the world. Take our example from “transmission.” Most people who believe the
earth is round would say they believe it because
of science. But that is false.
They believe it because they’ve been told
by someone who claimed science discovered
that the earth was round. There are perfectly good scientific methods for
discerning that the world is round, but most people ‘know’ this not by
investigation but by transmission. This sounds like we’re talking about water
vs. wet, but it is incredibly significant for understanding arguments and responding
to them. If the source of information is untrustworthy, then the argument needs
to center around the source, not around the supposed fact. Just to reiterate
the scientific method: observable (5 senses), repeatable discoveries
[pertaining to the natural order] that can be codified into a statement/law.
There’s a lot that gets thrown around as ‘science,’ that is simply, definitively
not science—by definition.
Investigation can be summarized by “Try this.”
Experience is the method for knowing that was once the most
often used by our culture… just several years ago (I experienced). However it has
recently been superseded by transmission—in large part due, I think, to the
connectivity offered through social media. Regardless, experience is a source
of knowledge, and is the 2nd most commonly used by our culture.
These are the ‘facts’ that are ‘obvious, self-evident, just because, everyone knows.’
This is the knowledge that is more often absorbed than being told, discovering,
or thinking through. It sometimes happens on a personal level and sometimes on
a cultural level. The most common one today relates to sexuality, gender,
gender identity, etc. But you often find this source appealed to in the ‘privilege’
propaganda. Note: I use the term intentionally but without malice. Propaganda
is simply statements/information presented—not argued. It is information,
knowledge, beliefs offered up to be adopted—have you noticed that in the
information presented, they include statistics (which technically speaking is
not science, but a societal experience) but the statistics seem to always oppose
‘blacks vs. whites’ instead of accounting for the many other ethnicities in the
United States? In other words, the advocates are relating an experience comparison as a fact (not an argument) as the only basis for certain reforms. Which is fine as long as they understand it's not an argument.
Experience can be summarized by “I feel” or “these are just
the facts.”
Now that’s a lot of information, I know. And it can be
confusing and may seem pointless, but remember… we’re learning how to argue—something
you were probably never taught before. Something you’ve been practicing wrong
your entire life… ever since the first person stole your toy and your argument
was “but it’s mine.” It’s okay to not fully grasp the epistemology, just be
aware that while you may think you’re arguing, you might actually be speaking
to someone who can’t understand you because
the knowledge your using is a different kind.
To give you an idea of how to spot epistemology, and to show
how complex peoples assumptions and ‘arguments’ can be, I have an anecdote for
you (transmission):
I was teaching a class one day(experience), and found a
child watching (investigating) a YouTube video on his phone. He said it was a “reaction”
video. In other words, he was watching (observing) the experience of another person
experiencing a different YouTube video. I was amazed, and it doesn’t make sense
(logic) to me why you would use your
time in this way, but this kid believed
that it was the most valuable use of his time in that moment.
It is important to note that none of these categories of
knowledge are false or bad. They are all valid forms of knowledge—we just have
to realize that sometimes the knowledge has its limits. I should not argue that
children are nonsensical simply because I had one experience of a kid doing
something that seemed nonsensical. It’s why there’s such contention around
abortion: one side has scientific knowledge and argues that it stands as more
important than experiential knowledge; the other has experiential knowledge and
argues that it stands as more important than scientific knowledge. I haven’t
tested this, but I’d be willing to bet that at the center of each political
debate you’ll find each side grasping its category of knowledge as supreme, but the best and truest things are those things that find
resonance in all categories of knowing—those are the things worth believing;
the things worth loving; the things that while I’m willing to be proven wrong,
I doubt you can convince me.
Well, that seems like enough for today. And while it’s all quite
complex, I think you’ll find that even these first 2 steps will go a long way
in understanding and making arguments. Come back soon for a few more steps.
**I'd just like to add a note here because I've seen a lot of condemnation of people with different opinions (especially John Piper). Please note that I did not argue that certain things are true or that others are false; I did not paint certain groups as enemies; if you intend to decry and defame me (or simply 'argue against me') then please make an argument, not a statement.