The term Rational discussion should give you an insight on what is going to be defined in this post. The whole purpose of an argument is to convince the other person, with valid, strong, and logical reasons. So in order for the other person to be convinced, the one who is arguing and making the claims should :
1. Know the subject under discussion
2 ) Be able and willing to reason well
3 ) Not lie
( Epstein, Critical Thinking, Pg 60)
The arguer should have enough background knowledge about the idea he/she is going to argue about. If one does not have the sufficient information regarding the topic, his argument would certainly not convince the other person. The argument does not become valid, just because the arguer talks about an issue that the other person does not know. So, it is the duty of the arguer to also fill in the blanks for the other person in order to argue and convince them.
The act of convincing someone travels through many different paths. That is, people get convinced either by watching the news, reading the news papers, or even word of mouth. There are many arguers who get convinced and try to pass the message on to others. These arguers obtain only the convincing message and forget why they got convinced, and why they should convince other people. Thus, such people lack the reasoning capacity to rationally form their arguments.
Finally, an argument should not contain lies. If there are lies that can easily be detected, the other person is not going to be convinced. Lies always deteriorate the impact of the argument. It has happened to me many times. I have tried to argue with my mother, with the support of lies, and my mother sees right through it. I end up not convincing my mother to reach my objective.
The author of Critical Thinking also mentions that, if there are equally good arguments from both sides of the coin, then it is best to look into both sides and then come to a conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment