Not at all, given that two people can be presented with the same argument, and one feels forced to accept it (because he thinks it's so irresistibly good), and the other one doesn't (because he thinks it's dumb).

IOW, an argument's strength doesn't somehow exist objectively, independently of persons, as an inherent trait of the argument itself. Rather, strength is ascribed to it by people, and different people will ascribe different strengths to it. — baker

I thought so too but then I read a couple of introductory books on logic.

If arguments would indeed have the power you speak of earlier, then how do you explain that there's plenty of people who aren't swayed by arguments?

If arguments would indeed have the power you speak of earlier, then how do you explain that there's plenty of people who aren't swayed by arguments? — baker

They who "...aren't swayed by arguments" don't know what an argument is. The way a debate with arguments proceeds is, to my knowledge, all about what must be true given certain assumptions and/or claims and how that, on occasion, is denied, the resulting contradiction proving the incoherent nature of an individual's or group's position.

They who "...aren't swayed by arguments" don't know what an argument is. The way a debate with arguments proceeds is, to my knowledge, all about what must be true given certain assumptions and/or claims and how that, on occasion, is denied, the resulting contradiction proving the incoherent nature of an individual's or group's position. — TheMadFool

So what if their position is proven wrong? Will they poof out of existence?

What's in it for you if you prove someone else's position wrong?


Remember, this thread's theme is Philosophy vs. real life!

They who "...aren't swayed by arguments" don't know what an argument is — TheMadFool

This can mean several things and I am not sure what your intent is. My experience is that good arguments often do not change minds. I think there may even be psychological studies on this for anyone who cares. Isn't it the case that people have emotional reasons for beliefs and this shields those beliefs from facts or arguments.

This can mean several things and I am not sure what your intent is. My experience is that good arguments often do not change minds. I think there may even be psychological studies on this for anyone who cares. Isn't it the case that people have emotional reasons for beliefs and this shields those beliefs from facts or arguments. — Tom Storm

"...good arguments often do not change minds". Thanks for the warning. I believe everyone knows that logic (argument) alone doesn't quite do the job of convincing people. That's why rhetoric is a subject in its own right.

I sense a paradox: People get emotionally involved with the beliefs/claims/propositions that they espouse and support. The nature of this emotional relationship is that people don't want to be wrong or, conversely, they wan't to be right (about their beliefs). The problem is the more attached people are to their beliefs the more difficult it is for them to see the flaws in their beliefs, flaws which if they didn't mind examining could lead to the truth and then they would be truly right about things. The paradox is this: people want to be right and thus they take offence when others contradict their beliefs. However, to be truly right they shouldn't take offence when others contradict their beliefs because it's possible that they could be wrong. In essence, people want to be right; after all, they get emotional when told they're wrong, but the problem is that once you get all emotional about something, you feel you're right no matter what. Feelings are a problem for logic because though the relation between feelings and truth starts off on the right foot (we feel good when we're right), somewhere along the way, our feelings betray us (we're right no matter what the evidence says).

So what if their position is proven wrong? Will they poof out of existence?

What's in it for you if you prove someone else's position wrong?

Remember, this thread's theme is Philosophy vs. real life! — baker

The point of logic is to make sure that we're on the right side of the line dividing truths and lies.

The point of logic* is to make sure that we're on the right side of the line dividing truths and lies. — TheMadFool

And how can you know what is true and what is a lie, given that you, too, are, as a human, emotionally attached to your beliefs and resent it if other people contradict them?


*And no, this isn't what logic is about. Go back to that couple of introductory books on logic.

But philosophers are aware of that, are they not? — baker

I suspect that most are.

So why do they still advocate for criticial thinking? — baker

Because having such a skill make us less susceptible to manipulation via bad arguments. It can also enhance our power to influence others through its use and abuse. Critical thinking is thus a form of power.

"...good arguments often do not change minds". Thanks for the warning. I believe everyone knows that logic (argument) alone doesn't quite do the job of convincing people. That's why rhetoric is a subject in its own right. — TheMadFool

Sorry - I was being superfluous.