Arguing
Arguing
Dialogue arguing
Dialogue arguing
JO : There’s no point in arguing with you, I’ll never win.
TOM : No, because I’m right!
JO : Not because of that, because you’re better at arguing than
me.
TOM : Eh? You’re not stupid. If I’m wrong, you should be able to
show that I’m wrong. If you can’t, then saying I’m better at arguing than you
is just another of saying I’m right and you’re wrong!
JO : Not at all. Just because you can construct better
arguments than me, that doesn’t mean you’re right. People can construct very
good arguments for false positions.
TOM : Sure they do, but if we’re committed to rational debate, then
you surely have to accept whatever the best argument leads you to. You wouldn’t
say “There’s no point arguing with you, your evidence is better than mine”. If
I have better evidence, you should agree with me; likewise if I have better
arguments.
JO : It’s not quite the same. If the evidence supports one
theory better than another, then we both have good reasons for accepting that.
But the strength of arguments depends much more on the strength of the arguer.
For example, I bet if you wanted to, you could beat me in almost any argument,
even if you chose to defend a position you thought was false.
TOM : I’m not sure about that! But even if it’s true, you’ve got a
problem. I assume you think that as a rational person, you should accept
whatever position has the best arguments in favour of it?
JO : I guess so.
TOM : Well better arguments are bound to come from people who are
better arguers! So you can’t just refuse to accept what I say on the basis that
I’m better at arguing than you.
JO : I still think I’m on to something here, but, as usual,
right now, you have the better argument.
TOM : Because I’m right!
JO : Because you’re the better arguer – it’s not the same.
TOM : Grr!
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar