An example of an unreliable source could be Wikipedia where information can be changed quickly and by anyone. The site does have some failsafe mechanisms to avoid high levels of misinformation, and it can provide some limited support to an argument, but it can’t be considered reliable enough for academic purposes and would certainly be challenged in that area. — Baden
How to respond to people who make irrelevant or intentionally trollish attempts to derail your initial argument?
If the response is irrelevant, one can get caught up in a labyrinth of trying to steer someone who doesn't really understand the initial premise back on track; as for trolls, how do we get them to go back into the woodwork and stay there? — uncanni
I would not cite Wikipedia in an academic article, perhaps, but it's been proven to be quite reliable for information: — Artemis
Argumentation at its best — Baden
Effective arguments tend to include the following elements:
• A Claim
• Reasons and Evidence
• A Warrant
[ ... ]
SUMMARY
Putting all this together: When you go about constructing an argument, make sure you focus both on the necessary elements of the argument and the many potential objections that may be made to it in terms of its form (e.g. is it logical?) and its substance (e.g. is it well-supported?). Do not dismiss objections on the basis of what may seem obvious to you. Instead, work on the supposition that your reader will demand as much clarity as possible as to what your claim is and how you are supporting it and as much quantity and quality of support as you could reasonably be expected to give.
So when forming an argument:
• Make a clear and significant claim which you are able to support.
• Include reasons/evidence and a warrant where necessary to back up your claim.
• Provide reliable and relevant primary and/or secondary sources.
• Take the perspective of someone doubtful of/antagonistic to your claim.
• Imagine as many objections to your claim as you can.
• Strive to meet them all using reasons, warrants, and hard evidence where possible.
Sources
College, E. (2019). LibGuides: Research Skills Tutorial: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Information Sources. Subjectguides.esc.edu . Accessed 7 Nov. 2019.
Turabian, K. (2003). Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. (7th Edition): Univ. of Chicago Press. Chicago. — Baden
(Thought this might be useful for the learning centre and Amity asked me to do it. So, there you go.) — Baden
A: I think you should write an article on 'How to Write an Article'.
B: Actually, I've started a blog on various aspects of writing on my site, including how to write academic articles. What I might do here is write an article on argumentation (claims, reasons, warrants, and evidence etc).
College, E. (2019). LibGuides: Research Skills Tutorial: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Information Sources. Subjectguides.esc.edu . Accessed 7 Nov. 2019. — Baden
Examples of Claims
Sociological (broad): Systemic racism still exists in the United States.
Significance and Relevance of Claims
If the goal is to have people engage with your claim then it must be of some significance to them. There’s little point in making claims that are generally accepted or are of so little import that nobody cares that you made them. — Baden
I'd suggest two additional principles as well, which I tend to employ alot and think useful:
(1) Establish your 'enemy' early (even an idealized one, if there isn't an existing one). The claim should be counterposed early on with it's opposite or competing claim, so as to -
(2) Establish the stakes of the claim: what difference does the claim make? Against the counterclaim, what would be different or what implications would follow if either one were true or untrue? If we can establish the motivations for why this claim matters, it becomes alot easier to follow lines of argumentation. — StreetlightX
I especially like the section on warrant, the use in this context which I'd not come across before. — StreetlightX
Establish your 'enemy' early (even an idealized one, if there isn't an existing one) — StreetlightX
If we can establish the motivations for why this claim matters, it becomes a lot easier to follow lines of argumentation. — StreetlightX
A key to strengthening a paper through considering dissonance is to look critically—really critically—at your draft. Read through your paper with an eye towards content, assertions, or logical leaps that you feel uncertain about, that make you squirm a little bit, or that just don’t line up as nicely as you’d like. Some possible sources of dissonance might include:
• logical steps that are missing
• questions a skeptical reader might raise that are left unanswered
• examples that don’t actually connect to what you’re arguing
• pieces of evidence that contradict each other
• sources you read but aren’t mentioning because they disagree with you.
Look for dissonance. — Amity
This comment has virtually nothing to do with what I wrote either in terms of its intention or its substance. — Baden
Still, whatever... but how about at least a word limit? — bongo fury
This is the best part of the whole post.Potential Issues with Warrants
Warrants obviously aren’t a guarantee of a good argument and may be attacked for similar reasons as other parts of your argument. They may be considered unjustified due to a lack of evidence, ungeneralizable, or limited in some other way. Again, you may have to go through a process of buttressing your warrant against attack with more levels of reasoning and evidence in order to make it strong enough to carry your claim. And the more formal your argumentative context, the more likely the inference from general principle to specific instance in your warrant is likely to be challenged and solid evidence is more likely to be sought after (with the balance of hard evidence and reasoning required also dependent on the field in which the claim is made and the type of claim made).
SUMMARY
Putting all this together: When you go about constructing an argument, make sure you focus both on the necessary elements of the argument and the many potential objections that may be made to it in terms of its form (e.g. is it logical?) and its substance (e.g. is it well-supported?).Do not dismiss objections on the basis of what may seem obvious to you. Instead, work on the supposition that your reader will demand as much clarity as possible as to what your claim is and how you are supporting it and as much quantity and quality of support as you could reasonably be expected to give.
So when forming an argument:
Make a clear and significant claim which you are able to support.
Include reasons/evidence and a warrant where necessary to back up your claim.
Provide reliable and relevant primary and/or secondary sources.
Take the perspective of someone doubtful of/antagonistic to your claim.
Imagine as many objections to your claim as you can.
Strive to meet them all using reasons, warrants, and hard evidence where possible. — Baden
If they are irrelevant points to your position, it should be simple to point that out and shouldn't require any leg-work at all. Use the guidelines listed in the OP. Don't be lazy. Go about showing how it is irrelevant rather committing the very first logical fallacy - the ad hominem - by calling them a troll.This is great information. I have a question: How to respond to people who make irrelevant or intentionally trollish attempts to derail your initial argument?
If the response is irrelevant, one can get caught up in a labyrinth of trying to steer someone who doesn't really understand the initial premise back on track; as for trolls, how do we get them to go back into the woodwork and stay there? — uncanni
rhetorical trickery — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.