Good argumentation - what's needed to get it and what's not
This conversation comes up in different forms, and I wonder why. I've grown to suspect my understanding of the english word "argument".
First of all, I have found how to conduct honest, productive and beneficial arguments. These actually benefit both the participants and give us possibility to arrive at a correct conclusion that relates well to reality. There has been doubt as to whether such arguments can actually exist, so here I provide my guide as to how to make them happen. I have given my best effort to describe something that I know to exist and something that I experience often and enjoy to great benefits. I hope this can be useful for you without making me seem intellectually intimidating.
We shouldn't discuss whether or not "argumentation" is desirable or not without defining what arguments hold. I think lot of the attitude AGAINST arguments come from the image of throwing kitchen utensils against each other, shouting match, or resorting to unrelated facts, personal attacks, verbal abuse or fraudulent use of argumentation tactics. It is intuitively (and correctly) clear to healthy persons that such aspects of an argument are to be avoided.
I'll go to the bottom of this: good argumentation requires utmost
intellectual and practical honesty from oneself. Period. It means that one should never use argumentation tactics that one knows to falsely advocate a particular viewpoint. The optimal argumentation - which would provide the optimal outcome for both participants - collapses under such tactics, if the both parties don't recognize the tactics as such early enough. After some time (and handling the issues brought up in the argument), the argument is then often taken into a paradox, contradiction, inconsistency or other undesirable outcomes, which inhibit the participants from coming into a VALID and acceptable conclusion, except by a chance of luck, perhaps.
There are numerous kinds of intuitively convincing statements that are actually flawed. This is almost invariably unclear to beginner argumentators. They tend to use these, accidentally or purposefully, giving bad name to "arguments" and propagating the idea that "anything can be proven" so it does not make sense to attempt to prove anything. Here is a short list:
*Appeal to authority
-Person A is (claimed) to be an authority on subject matter S
-Person A makes a claim C about subject S
-Therefore, claim C is true.
*Begging the question (I'll do an example)
-I have a plan that will improve our company's profits.
-We are already maximally profitable (taking the subject of argument as a premise of one's own argument), so we can't get improvement from that plan.
*Circumstancial ad hominem
-Person A makes a claim C.
-Person A would benefit from the claim C being true.
-Therefore, person A is biased in the claim C, and C is false.
One has to get rid of the habits of using such convincing, erroneous tactics. I have found it very efficient to arrive to good outcomes in a conversation where neither one of us uses any of such tactics, a good outcome being a somewhat common goal. Goals can be partially or completely common: the more collaborative the goal, the less incentive is there to resort to fraudulent argumentation tactics.
This is why there is a need for judge in a courtroom. The lawyers could do all the arguments by themselves, but if there is no-one to set standard that the proper tactics are used and the improper are not used, the system collapses and will be unable to produce the desired outcome.
Two benevolent persons who are knowledgeable about the dangers of false arguments and have a common goal, that of knowledge, improvement and learning, are in a better likelihood to be able to conduct a successful argument that produces desirable results for both participants.
The range of successful outcomes that an argumentation can produce is determined by the reality of the subject area, argumentation rules, adherance to them, starting points to the argument, and knowledge, goodwill, skills of the participants, and adherence to the reality. In the other end, it is rather impersonal, rules are followed well, and the outcome is mostly decided by the reality of the subject area, not by the skill of the participants. This is accomplished by the previously mentioned measures, plus that of having adequately skilled participants. The skill is more like a barrier to entry, the skill isn't the sole factor.
In the other end, we have dishonest participants who don't know the subject area well enough, are unskilled in honest negotiation tactics and so resort to fraudulent tactics, giving both the participants a feelining that something unexplainably false. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth and does little to convince the either side.
In my model, if both participants have an adequate skill for the subject area, and neither are dishonest, skill levels become largely irrelevant. If either (or both) participants have inadequate skill for the task, or inadequate level of honesty, the situation favors the one participant being more skillfull and utilizing more self-serving, dishonest argumentation tactics.
The only solution for the above problem is not to engage in arguments that are above one's skill level, a fact which many people hate to realize. A measure of honesty is also needed, as noted. Failing these requirements, knowledge and honesty will be required, or knowledge and a mediator (or a judge). Failing all of those, nothing can be accomplished, apart from learning other's point of views, and perhaps a lesson in the skill of argumentation.
Everybody has learned to argumentate - by this description - in some subject area. For example, to agree upon whether there is milk in the fridge, or not. To improve the range of subject areas where one may successfully argumentate needs practice - it can be done, if one loves honesty and progress, otherwise the only way is to develop as a verbal fighter.
Links: more information about good and flawed arguments and their applicability.
Fallacies
Atheism: Logic & Fallacies
The Logical Fallacies: Welcome