You may have seen my recent post on my /study page, where I updated all the links and formatting.

Well, I need to do the same with /arguments, and there I am mostly in need of content. So I’m asking all of you for help.

As you can see from the main page I am focused on collecting arguments, such as why the death penalty should be abolished, or why the rich should pay more or less in taxes. The list of arguments themselves is content that I need.

Then, most importantly, I need good arguments for them. This means a few main things:

1. Structured: I want these to read like well-put-together essays
2. Concise (as possible): I’m thinking from a few paragraphs to a few pages, tops
3. Evidence supported: back all claims with research, citations, polls, etc. This is not the place to be sloppy

Those are reminders for me as well; I’ve been known to break all three of those rules, and the /arguments page is not the place for it.

So that’s the request: help me create or collect some good content for this. Remember that there are many who write better than I do, and we can use other arguments as well. We’ll put them out as bullet points and give links to the full arguments at their sources in those cases.

For subjects where there’s already a ton of good, concise content in the style that I prefer, we’ll basically be summarizing and linking to those pieces. Where the content elsewhere is too dense I (we) will be making our own trimmed versions of all the arguments together.

So, please raise a hand and volunteer. I know tons of you out there will be very good at this. Thanks.

::

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

The problem is we don’t understand the problem.

What’s the take-away? When you are solving a difficult problem re-ask the problem so that your solution helps you learn faster. Find a faster way to fail, recover, and try again. If the problem you are trying to solve involves creating a magnum opus, you are solving the wrong problem.

I find this is generally true. And to add to that, most frustrating arguments are based on miscommunication. It’s quite sad, really, that most effort is wasted. The heat/light analogy comes to mind.

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

If we’re all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here’s an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

from paulgraham.com

One method of doing this is to identify the loaded concepts, and to decompress them into their simple and easy to communicate ideas. During the course of the discussion, take care to substitute the fully expanded descriptions of your beliefs rather using the loaded and encapsulated terms that you think summarizes those concepts.

This way, you’re more likely to identify true disagreement, and, thus, a productive debate. ::

What follows is my new method of addressing someone who doesn’t create sound arguments during a debate, i.e. those backed by fact, data, or some type of objective evidence. Once you suspect that you’re arguing with someone like this, directly probe to see if they have any evidence whatsoever to support themselves.

If they can’t offer any–and especially if they look genuinely confused by your request–respond with something like this:

Well, if you are someone who holds beliefs without regard for actual evidence then I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Basically, if facts don’t sway your beliefs, then there’s no reason I should believe I will be successful either.

This approach will yield one of two responses:

1. a renewed interest in listening to your evidence
2. an angry retreat back to his/her beliefs, with no offer of evidence

Either way, you benefit. You either get to have a real conversation or you get to save energy for someone worthy of one. ::

In the spirit of improving my debating skills (both written and oral) I’m setting out on a short project to learn, re-familiarize, and remind myself to build sound arguments. Of all the tutorials on doing this I’ve found, I like this one from Purdue the most, and I’ll be using it to construct this short primer that I’ll probably end up converting to a study article.

Let’s start with philosophypages’ definition of an argument:

An argument is a set of two or more propositions related to each other in such a way that all but one of them (the premises) are supposed to provide support for the remaining one (the conclusion).

And then some definitions:

• logic: the study of the distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning
• proposition: a statement that is declared by a declarative statement that can either be true or false. Also commonly referred to as a claim
• premise: a statement whos truth is used to infer that of others. Think of this as a building block for an argument, or a link in a chain with the last link being your conclusion
• inference: the relationship that holds between the premises and the conclusion of a logical argument, or the process of drawing a conclusion from premises that support it deductively or inductively
• conclusion: a proposition whose truth has been inferred on the basis of other propositions assembled with it in a logical argument

The transition or movement from premises to conclusion, the logical connection between them, is the inference upon which the argument relies.¹

There are two main types of argument: deductive, and inductive. I like about.com’s explanation of the two:²

A deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false. Thus, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and inferences. In this way, it is supposed to be a definitive proof of the truth of the claim (conclusion). Here is a classic example:

Or, in other words: the truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

1. All men are mortal. (premise)
2. Socrates was a man. (premise)
3. Socrates was mortal. (conclusion)

An inductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion would be false. Thus, the conclusion follows probably from the premises and inferences. Here is an example:

Or in other words: the truth of the premises merely makes it probable that the conclusion is true.

1. Socrates was Greek. (premise)
2. Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)

Basic Structure

First, a definition:

An argument involves the process of establishing a claim and then proving it with the use of logical reasoning, examples, and research.

Which gets organized like so:

• Title
• Introduction
  • Thesis statement
• Body Paragraphs
  • Constructing Topic Sentences
  • Building Main Points
  • Countering the Opposition
• Conclusion

Title

Just as with any writing, it’s important to make a first impression. For an argument that has a form appropriate for the use of title (formal oral or written), this is the opportunity to make that first impression.

• Puns
• Humor
• Using words or examples from the main argument to be found later
• Asking a question
• Avoid clichés
• Don’t be boring

Introduction

The key with the intro is to smoothly slide into your argument while appearing to entertain–unless of course you’re doing some sort of strict or formal deal, at which point you can take the line of, “in this argument I intend to show”, etc. etc. But most arguments don’t happen in this fashion, so I’m going to cover the natural form.

Consider these as openers:

• personal anecdote
• a nifty quote
• shocking stats (the more solid the better, of course)
• an image that will prompt a reaction
• a question

Regardless of how you set it up, the main point is to blend naturally into your main argument, which is defined by your thesis statement.

Your Thesis

This statement basically frames the entire argument. It’s critical that you are very careful with it, as you will be defending it for the rest of the talk, paper, debate, etc.

The thesis is what you are trying to convince the readers/listeners of. It is not a fact; it’s a proposition (also known as “declarative sentence”) that has to be proven by your forthcoming argument.

Supporting Paragraphs

Just as you were taught in high school to do with essays, we support arguments (which an essay basically is) by using body paragraphs. These give support to your primary claim made in your introduction / thesis.

The strongest support often comes from well-respected data on the topic you’re discussing, e.g. data from large, well-done studies, solid polling data (if you’re discussing opinion), etc. The key is to have the data come from a source that is least exposed to scrutiny due to small sample sizes, faulty methodologies, or bias.

Addressing the Counterarugument

Your argument will face opposition; it’s up to you to figure out exactly what shape that resistance will take, and to adequately handle it preemptively at various points within your supporting paragraphs.

Be careful to approach these counterarguments with respect, and to form a significant attack on your own idea when addressing the counterarguments. To stand up a weaker version of the real counter, only to knock it down with ease, will cause many to dismiss your entire effort outright.

Also try to avoid rude, hostile, or deprecating language when addressing counterpoints; this tactic can easily result in the audience that you most care about (those who disagree with you) ignoring your argument due to adverse emotional reaction.

Conclusion

The conclusion should basically restate your originial proposition (claim), and then lay out the support you have given to it. You can slightly restate your claim, but avoid adding any additional claims–as these too would require their own support.

References

¹ [ Arguments and Inference | philosophypages.com ]
² [ Deductive Reasoning | wikipedia.org ]

This is one of my favorite programs that NPR does, and if you haven’t partaken of it I highly suggest you look into it.

It’s a podcast where they take a topical proposition, such as:

• Gun control makes America safer, or…
• Washington is more responsible for the financial crisis than Wall Street…

…and they get experts in the field to debate the topic in front of an audience of people off the street (NPR enthusiasts, keep in mind).

It’s done in the Oxford debate style, which makes it flow really well, and they judge the winner by who sways more people. They take a poll on the proposition before the debate starts and then they do the debate, and then they poll again after the debate concludes. Here’s the format:

1. Opening statements
2. Debate between teams, with questions from the audience
3. Closing statements

Seriously, add this to your list of podcasts. Listening to one of these on a topic is equivalent to spending multiple hours online researching something. ::

Links

[ NPR: Intelligence Squared | npr.org ]
[ Intelligence Squared Podcast | npr.org ]

In the course of writing often on a site like this it’s easy to get into trouble by making arguments that are weak for various reasons. Luckily for me I have some very intelligent and educated friends and readers, and when I make these mistakes I am often scolded for them–rightly so.

I’ve posted this in the past, but I’m posting it again as a reminder to myself to try and be more careful and precise with my debate style. I ask those of you who are interested to learn and/or re-familiarize yourself with these common arugument problems, and to call me on them when you see them. This way we can identify weaknesses using a common language, which will improve the overall quality of our discourse. ::

[ A List of Logical Fallacies | nizkor.org ]

(thanks to icepyro for the link)

[ aMap | amap.com ]

The Trivium are made up by the three core skills taught in medieval universities:

1. Grammar
2. Logic
3. Rhetoric

From Wikipedia:

-

Grammar is the mechanics of a language; logic (or dialectic) is the “mechanics” of thought and analysis; rhetoric is the use of language to instruct and persuade.

The study of logic, grammar and rhetoric was considered preparatory for the quadrivium, which was made up of arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. The trivium was the beginning of the liberal arts.

-

I’ve probably sent you off on a reading frenzy. Enjoy. ::

Excerpt:

When someone asks you “Why are you doing X?”,

And you don’t remember an answer previously in mind,

Do not ask yourself “Why am I doing X?”.

…

Instead, try to blank your mind – maybe not a full-fledged crisis of faith, but at least try to prevent your mind from knowing the answer immediately – and ask yourself:

“Should I do X, or not?”

Links

[ Back Up and Ask Whether, Not Why | overcomingbias.com ]

[ Affective Death Spirals | overcomingbias.com ]