The unofficial constructive argument useful notes post, by Calvin Broeker: 1. Ridiculing your interlocutor will only change their opinion if they trust their fear of social judgment more than their rational capabilities. Even if it does change their mind, you will probably not hear them admit it. Trying this with anyone makes you an obviously abusive dick. If anyone sees someone doing this, make sure to let them know that theyre being a dick, even if you think theyre right. 2. If a hypothetical logically supports or refutes the positions of the interlocutors, then that hypothetical is relevant. Do not dismiss relevant hypothetical reasoning as irrelevant. I literally figuratively cant believe Im explaining this shit in the 21st century. 3. There are different kinds of possibility based on different contexts. I will list what I think are the five most basic contexts: a. In the context of logical possibility, anything is possible which does not contradict anything explicitly established. b. In the context of physical possibility, anything is possible which does not violate the laws of physics. c. In the context of futuristic possibility, anything is possible that we can make happen in the future with the help of advanced technology which will be available then. d. In the context of intentional possibility, anything is possible that we can make happen in the near future with current technologies. e. In the context of coincidental possibility, anything is possible that would happen without humanitys intentional causation. --- 4. The validity of a claim is solely determined by its level of coherence with the claims which have been previously suggested. Any other standards of validity are not logical necessities and should be established in mutual agreement between interlocutors. 5. The relevance of a claim is solely determined by its ability to clearly answer the topic question, to dismiss the premise(s) of the topic question as false, or to logically support or refute any of the other relevant claims. 6. Any claims which are invalid and/or irrelevant are fallible claims and should be dismissed or revised so that they are valid and relevant. 7. Make sure the topic question, positions of the interlocutors, and rhetorical rules are all clearly established. --- These notes will probably be updated in the near future. I might add some stuff about the nature of justification and its relationship with the Munchhausen trilemma. https://youtube/watch?v=_RCIYI9dY1Y
Posted on: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 00:43:45 +0000