leejo

I think it's mistake to prefer an unsuccesful argument that adhers strictly to logic over a successful argument that is persuasive and therefore effective. I would also suggest that beginning an argument in a manner that patronizes the reader (let me explain to you how you're wrong, leejo) is precisely the sort of scenario I'm describing. Maybe you're right, but you've lost me. You have therefore failed to craft a persuasive argument and therefore, I assert, failed to craft a good argument.

In any case, I would not say that any persuasive argument is a good argument. See below.

Close. I would add that there is more than just logic in a good argument.

You take it that even I? Again, this comes across as patronizing, off-putting, and unlikely to persuade. But to stay on point, a gun to the head is not persuasive at all. It's coercive. Beating someone with a club is not a persuasive argument, although it's often an effective means of setting policy, literally and figuratively.

I guess one might say that a good argument takes into account the audience's threats, fears, weaknesses, and hopes. I think that the argument is one thing and efforts that support the argument might apply force to "encourgage" the audience to make a particular decision or create opportunities for audience members who make the "correct" choice.

Uh...huh? Cing asserted that there are physical characteristics that differentiate a dodge and a ford, or something along those lines. I replied that many important decisions are made with little careful consideration to those sorts of physical characteristics. For example, we don't choose mates based on one being a quarter inch thicker here or thinner there. I didn't mean to imply that an argument had taken place, I was simply restating an earlier assertion I had made about decision-making.

I think our big hang up here is that you seem to be thinking of arguments like a good logic professor would, as abstract things to be analyzed, dissected, and judged based on their adherence to logical rules. I'm countering that here outside the cave, arguments are sets of words and even actions (persuasive, not coercive) that have a practical goal: to bring another to think or act as one wishes. Just as one wouldn't call an illegal play in a sport that results in a score a "good" play, one shouldn't confuse lying or snakeoil salesmanship with examples of good arguments. However, in sports, sales, discussion, war, and any number of activities, achieving the objective is the primary concern, not strict adherence to some abstraction.

You're in the cave analyzing shadows on the wall. Out here good arguments aren't as pretty maybe, but they exist to get things done. They are primarily, and appropriately, judged using that metric, IMO.

CingularDuality

You're correct that not all decisions are made rationally, but that doesn't mean that we're not constantly bombarded by dumb arguments to decide a certain way because the snake oil works.

Don't buy the snake oil!

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

leejo

Another useful test in determining if an argument is bad: Is a drunk English soccer fan involved?

sordavie

I think, Leejo, that we just have different ideas of what amounts to a good argument. You think a good argument is one that actually persuades people. (By the way, a single action can be both described as persuasive and coercive. I see don't see why those are mutually exclusive adjectives. This is not an act like me physically moving your arm in order to coerce the movement of your arm. This is an act that takes advantage of the hostage's emotional states - his fears of being shot.) I think that a good argument is one should persuade people. This normative claim is hard to spell out. That's why people study logic. That's what they're trying to figure out.

I doubt I'll be able to persuade you to change your mind. That's fine by me. You haven't persuaded me. So, I guess, by your standards, your own argument is bad relative to me. Given a really naive audience, a lot of bad arguments become good ones by your light. Given a jaded audience those good ones become bad. If you try to convince conspiracy theorists that they're wrong, all your arguments are bad no matter how persuasive or convincing they should be. Maybe you don't see anything wrong with that. But most people do. So, it looks like, in the end, whatever arguments you have for your conception of a good argument turn out to be bad arguments by your own light. They're going to be self-defeating arguments.

__________________

leejo

Maybe so. But if you examine the arguments made by the pros who wield power and achieve wealth - the pols and lawyers and salesmen - they are riddled with errors that associate professors of logic pounce upon in the process of dismissing those arguments.

I did study logic, though probably not as deeply as you (mathematics, minors in physics and philosophy with most of philosophy concentrating on logic) and have come to believe that when a model isn't practical, the model might need fixing. Applying logic to determine that arguments that yield results are flawed seems goofy to me now. An example of Godel's proof. Logic is consistent, but incomplete. I'm at a place at which I'm more interested in the areas where math and logic and physics stop, so that informs my thinking.

I appreciate the difference between an argument that does persuade and one that should persuade. I almost got into that but cut it for space for fear of having every reader nod off. I don't think it's fair of you to hold up conspiracy theorists or people who are fully entrenched in their thinking to shoot down my position here. Of course one cannot be successful making an argument to such people, whether one is logically sound in the argument or charming or both. This has, I think, far more to do with the audience than the argument or the arguer.

My assertion is that a logically flawed, but generally honest, argument may be a very good argument if it is generally successful and persuasive. For example, the famous ad hominem attack is a very practical, albeit logically flawed, piece of information. If a person has a history of unreliable behavior, can be shown to have been dishonest many times in the past, and belongs to the KKK, would you be willing to rely on his testimony to convict a black man? There is nothing I have just written that addresses the truth of his testimony, yet the picture I've painted undermines one's willingness to accept an argument that relies on his support.

A well-respected member of the community with a known track record of integrity and intelligence may give the same testimony and convict the same man. It's social.

I'm thinking of emotional and social factors in the same way. There is nothing logical about them. Often they may be unsound logically, and yet these factors have a lot more to do with crafting a good argument, I think, than pure logic.

I'm thinking back on symbolic logic and imagining that you have a vision of an equation in your head in which the premises support the assertions or they do not. I'm talking about exploring the reasons why the equations don't fit reality. It's of little use to get upset when a "bad" argument persuades nonetheless, and it's not productive to insult the persuaded as naive or unintelligent.

Good chat.