= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Luke_A_Somers comments on Open thread, Sept. 29 - Oct.5, 2014 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (339)
This sounds like presenting an argument for a thing from shared premises - the most ordinary form of trying to convince someone.
Yeah, it seems pretty similar to the regular old Socratic Method to me. Except classically I think the Socratic Method was used more to reject a "stop sign" claim and provoke more thought than to make a positive claim. You know, Socrates and his whole "I don't know anything."
Also, the libertarianism example strikes me as a non sequitor: it simply does not follow that if you support drug legalization you support libertarianism.
I skipped a few steps on the example. Think of it like this.
A: "States can do a lot of good'
B: "Well, maybe, but what do you think of drug laws"
A: "They're bad"
B: "What about the military-industrial complex"
A: "Bad"
B: "And you'd agree these are two examples of state power run amok in a structural way that's pretty pervasive across space and time"
A: "I guess so."
B: "So you agree that the state is fundamentally evil, tax is theft, and libertarianism is the answer, right?"
At this point, A will be thrown for a loop if they've never been subjected to these specific arguments before. A has been lead to the point where B is rhetorically strongest, and accepted premises in an unqualified form, which A might now wish to go back and qualify (but then A is arguing against him or her self).
(Whoever downvoted the parent: Consider whether your goals would have been better served by downvoting Punoxysm's original question about "Socratic Judo", rather than this which looks to me like a pretty clear explanation of what s/he means by that term.)
To me, the immediately obvious answer to B's last point is "Huh? Whatever makes you think I agree with that?" and I wouldn't have thought that's a very unusual response. But I'm sure it can be done more subtly.
I'm glad you gave an example, but I suspect A would reply "of course not!".
Ah, well if I was A I'd recognize B's argument as dishonestly fallacious and would most likely be turned away from his cause. It seems like it could definitely make for effective rhetoric though in different scenarios, with more subtle cases, and with different people. However, I don't think Socrates would approve :)
I don't think arguing from shared premises has ever been as "ordinary" as calling one's opponent a witch, a hater of truth, and a corrupter of the youth.
For one thing, arguing from shared premises exposes the arguer to the possibility that those shared premises might, when justly examined, lead to the opponent's conclusion.
That would probably be true in the case of trying to convince an audience. I think Luke referred to convincing your interlocutor.
Maybe in highly political arguments with an audience. I'm talking about even more ordinary kinds of convincing people than that.
In which case you MUST concede the argument.
I think that's not unreasonable to say, but this is more of a long-form thing, focusing on the rhetorical side and the rhythm of the conversation, and on finding the weakest part of a person's argument (don't steelman anything for them if they can't themselves).