I like the way ZhouBoTong talked about the “best” argument. A successful argument gets others to see something your way. — praxis

In one way, yes. On the other hand, I may get successfully and most directly from A to B by motoring down the wrong side of the road. But it would be a stretch, to say the least, to call that good driving. That's the angle I'm coming from.

The thing about argumentative writing aimed at an intelligent audience is that any rhetorical trickery will be discovered sooner or later and your ideas dismissed because of it. That's not what you want if you want to be taken seriously. But I agree 100% that rhetoric and its devices have a legitimate place in discourse.

This seems to assume that rhetoric is inherently irrational.

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. — Harry Hindu

No one has ever accused me of being intellectually lazy, and I do know the difference between a troll and other silliness or just plain lack of intellectual sophistication. You might want to lose the supercilious and flawed conclusions you jump to. You don't know me at all, so avoid the logical fallacy the slippery slope before you really know what you're talking about.

No, it doesn't. It refers to getting-others-to-see-your-way-by-any-means signalling what makes a good argument vs. following-particular-structures-and-guidelines signalling a good argument.

Rhetoric isn't inherently irrational, but (in this age) it's seen as inherently tricky, universally disliked by those aware of it, seen as a way to fire up the ignorant masses, and unlikely to be appreciated here, I'd say.

Take that rightly disliked device, the rhetorical question. Dutch academic editing service Scribbr, advising that rhetorical questions be avoided, says:

... often such questions are used in place of careful argument, and they are a poor substitution... they take up more space than it would take to simply state the point, and they lack the clarity and conviction of a good declarative statement.

No, it doesn't. It refers to getting-others-to-see-your-way-by-any-means signalling what makes a good argument vs. following-particular-structures-and-guidelines signalling a good argument. — Baden

The bolded portion above is a mischaracterization. 'By-any-means' could be the use of logical fallacies, for instance. I haven't thought it through but I don't believe that rhetoric depends on invalid reasoning.

How is it a mischaracterization? These are the points that started our conversation.

I can't help but wonder about the word "best". Is the "best" argument the most logically/structurally sound, or the one that is most likely to convince the other side? — ZhouBoTong

the value of persuasion (rhetoric and appeals to emotion) should not be overlooked. — praxis

Obviously, logical fallacies could be a part of that. Persuasion in general doesn't have structural limits (though rhetoric includes many well-known devices). Zhou spelled out the distinction very clearly and I simply repeated it.

Anyhow, if you disagree, let me know what you think persuasion (in your terms, rhetoric* and appeals to emotion**) rules out.

*Which certainly can and often does include invalid reasonIng.
**Which is itself a logical fallacy.

:up:

There's a difference between setting out to convince someone that your opinion is the right one, and setting out to solve a philosophical conundrum.

The OP is about the former.

I'm more interested in the latter, and hence find myself in agreement with

There's a difference between reporting philosophy and doing philosophy.

In terms of the long effort post vs point counterpoint format in arguments, especially on here:

One advantage of long form responses over point by point is that long form responses seem to stay on topic more regularly than short form ones. I think it takes a remarkable coincidence for two people to point-counterpoint ( or any short reactive comment to reactive comment ) for a long period of time and stay on topic; this is because the interlocutors, when engaging in that style exclusively, have not put enough effort into articulating their interpretations to triangulate upon their substantive disagreement.

There can be a very frustrating dynamic, for both people, when the posting styles mismatch. A long form commenter might get frustrated that the counterpoints are irrelevant, a short form commenter might get frustrated that they have to read so much irrelevant waffle.

How one should go about doing philosophy in general is a different topic. Maybe write an article on it. I'll give you three lines.

One line will do.

Look at how words are being used, and find a way to make them coherent.

Yes, so many variables though. I see you and @StreetlightX do some great long posts, which I think are very useful. And I often find myself admiring @Banno's short and punchy style too. It's very contextual. Quality comes in all shapes and sizes.

And I often find myself admiring Banno's short and punchy style too. — Baden

Though not so much in the last few minutes or so.

Look at how words are being used, and find a way to make them coherent. — Banno

Easy if you know how, Maestro.

My favourite is of course the more formal debate. It combines pith and flesh. I can get lots of attention from one of those.

That is one thing I miss, the formal structured debates and commentary discussions. Along with the short story competition and guest speakers. Need to get in gear and get something done about all that.

And I often find myself admiring Banno's short and punchy style too. It's very contextual. Quality comes in all shapes and sizes. — Baden

:up:

Obviously, logical fallacies could be a part of that. — Baden

Invalid reasoning could be part of any argument. In fact, unless I'm mistaken (I'm in over my head as it is), a formal logical argument can only be valid or invalid, and likewise any counter-argument, so in the most formal logical debate, at least one side uses invalid reasoning.

Quality comes in all shapes and sizes. — Baden

In my case, fat and hairy.

Not sure what your point is now. Can you refresh me on what your primary claim is concerning what I wrote? If it's that, re argumentation, an instrumental focus is "better" than a focus on inherent quality, that's fine. But I'm still not clear why you think that or if there's anything worth arguing over that's relevant to the substance of my post.

It could do with a little more exemplification here and there, but I feel like it was an afternoon well-spent anyhow. — Baden

I have read it again. This time I paid more attention to the examples you provided regarding Objections to Evidence and Reasoning. From the latter:

Logical Objections
Logical objections focus on the form of reasoning, which may include logical structure and implications either within a single reason (intra-consistency) or across several reasons (inter-consistency). Logical fallacies, of which there are many (a few of the more common ones are listed here) are typical objections in this sphere. — Baden

This included a link which I missed first time round; it leads to an excellent source:
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

A list of 15 logical informal fallacies well presented with relevant examples, including vids and a short quiz to check understanding.

I intend to better know and develop my skills in spotting flawed reasoning and rhetorical errors. Even more important to me than winning an online argument is to get my thoughts out there for examination and exploration. That takes dialogue... a bit of chat...all kinds of everything. Perhaps even effective reading, reflecting and writing ?

I tend to laziness...
The thought of writing an article in an afternoon...it would take me months, even if.
However, I guess if you've already done the research and have the sources and information ready, then it's a walk in the park.

Thanks again for all hard work :smile:

That is one thing I miss, the 1. formal structured debates and 2. commentary discussions. Along with the 3. short story competition and 4. guest speakers. Need to get in gear and get something done about all that. — Baden

Right. So, if you managed to write an article in an afternoon this should be easy-peasy.
Just make it so :cool:

1. I had a look at the Debate section. There's probably a reason why formal debate doesn't work so well online. However, it would hold a fascination - depending on the who and what.
2. What is a 'commentary discussion' ?
3. I remember talking about that before - about a year ago ?
4. Who did you have as a guest speaker ? How did that work - like an interview ?

How one should go about doing philosophy in general is a different topic. Maybe write an article on it. I'll give you three lines. — Baden

One line will do.
Look at how words are being used, and find a way to make them coherent. — Banno

Just found the Who and What of a formal debate :wink:
Now, the next question: How ?

There can be a very frustrating dynamic, for both people, when the posting styles mismatch. A long form commenter might get frustrated that the counterpoints are irrelevant, a short form commenter might get frustrated that they have to read so much irrelevant waffle. — fdrake

Posting styles aren't always fixed to either extreme.
The same person can use a different voice or text depending on interest and context.
Frustration can arise if there is a lack of attention. There can be various reasons for this; some complain of having attention deficit disorder. Or they are slow readers.
So, if we want to catch and hold some participants we can K.I.S.S.

I like one of your favourite quotations:
'Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)' - Grice

In some cases, short pieces work well and can more easily be understood - other times 'Keeping It Short and Simple' is not so Sweet. Some dismiss such as cryptic one-liners. However, a questioning mind might relish the challenge.
We can all learn when someone points out e.g. our tendency to waffle or to make excessive use of quotes. Paraphrasing is another skill I need to develop...

Mismatch is fine. It would be helluva boring if we were all the same, all of the time.
However, a bit of tolerance wouldn't go amiss. Neither would a bit of patience and practice at careful, quality thinking, listening and writing.

This conversation has been a great exercise in collaboration, so far...

...guest speakers. Need to get in gear and get something done about all that. — Baden

Would it help to have people suggest who they would like to listen to ?
If you couldn't get hold of a guest speaker who would wish to be here, then how about discussing a previous online interview ?

For example, I am reading 'So You've Been Publicly Shamed' by Jon Ronson *
I know little of him, apart from another book of his: 'The Psychopath Test'.

However, it seems he has a strong online presence:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Ronson
https://www.c-span.org/video/?325619-1/depth-jon-ronson

* He examines how the internet can gang up on individuals e.g. using Twitter to shame and victimise, whether one is deserving of it, or not. How one image, joke, thoughtless comment can ruin lives.
Ronson does this via case studies - following and interviewing people who have created outrage.
There is a chapter about his own experience of being publicly shamed.

I wonder what he makes of the current Brexit crisis, the image of the Lying Tory, who apparently feels no shame but does make apologies e.g. Grenfell:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/05/too-late-rees-mogg-faces-furious-backlash-over-grenfell-apology-stormzy

I only meant to point out the value of rhetoric in argumentation, and that it doesn’t necessarily consist of invalid reasoning (traveling on the wrong side of the road or whatever).

I didn’t mean to diminish the value of your post. Clearly even advanced members find it beneficial. It’s well written and quite thorough. Well done. :clap:

Really good post, Baden! We need more instructive posts like this as a good model. I do have one objection though when applying it to philosophical musings and arguments. This style of essay (which is basically an elaborated expository essay which tries to explain using points of data that can be obtained in empirical research) relies heavily on the "evidence" portion which at its base is academically researched empirical studies (experiments, observations, statistics, studies, etc.). A lot of philosophical ideas are a priori, and aren't amenable to this form of empirical evidence. It is purely relying on axiomatic ideas, first principles, value, etc. Indeed some of this can be gathered from sociological/psychological studies if one is trying to prove a specific application in those realms, but other ideas are not so amenable (inherently) to empirical studies. Whether mental states are ultimately primary, for example, can be informed by neuroscience and psychology, but ultimately that evidence would still be a category error if applied to metaphysical claims (i.e. the Hard Problem of Consciousness) as opposed to verification claims based on scientific methodology.

Thus, sometimes the "evidence" portion in philosophical debates is really just more detailed reasoning.