Rhetoric
any attempt to persuade by non-rational means
Ad Hominem Fallacy
Explaining positive or negative feelings about the source of a claim
Ad Populum Fallacy
Appeals to what’s popular or normal
Dialectic
Methodology for arguing constructively with one another
Public discourse
Debating with people with different beliefs and values is necessary for a healthy society
Polarisation
‘culture war’, be a part of the solution
Integrity and resilience
Care about the truth and face the vulnerability of real discussion.
Intellectual Humility
Current state of knowledge is mediocre, accept that others know better
Four golden rules
- Respond to the argument
- Track the burden of proof
- Demand overall consistency
- Be Charitable
Respond to the argument
Recognise claimant’s conclusion + directly engage with the premises or reasoning
Track the burden of proof
Be aware of whose responsibility it is to prove what
Demand overall consistency
Package of beliefs, values, commitments and arguments add up to a coherent, contradiction-free whole
Be Charitable
attribute opponent in the most plausible view and strongest argument consistent with their premises and conclusion
Begging the question
Claimant assumes conclusion → eg: if the person doesn’t already believe the conclusion, they won’t believe the premises
Demanding Unreasonable Justification
Respondent demands evidence for every premise the claimant offers, in excess of what’s contextually appropriate
False dichotomy
Claimant asserts that there are only two options when there is (at least) a third, possibly more plausible option.
