Upload
linh-dang
View
103
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
GROUP TOPIC
INDIVIDUAL TOPIC
Refuting an Argument
Strategies for Refutation
University of Languages and International Studies
Vietnam National University, Hanoi
Đặng Thị Linh
09E17
Hanoi, May 24, 2012
Refuting an Argument 2012
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I- Introduction………………………………………………………..……………….2
II- Strategies for argument refutation ……………………………………………….2
1. Provide an argument that one or more of the premises is false ……………………...2
2. Show that the argument is not valid or not strong…………........................................4
3. Show that the conclusion is false…………………………………………………..…6
4. Indirectly Refuting an Argument: Reducing to the Absurd………………………….7
5. Showing that an argument has committed an informal fallacy…………………… .8
III- Some general dos and don’ts to help you win arguments……………………...8
1. Dos……………………………………………………………………………………8
2.Don’ts………………………………………………………………………………..10
IV- Conclusion………………………………………………………………….........10
V- Reference…………………………………………………………………………..11
Refuting an Argument 2012
3
Strategies For Argument Refutation
I- Introduction:
It is important to keep in mind that there is no single formula that always works in
refuting an argument. Every argument is different argument, and so different strategies
will be effective for different arguments. Some strategies lend themselves better to
certain arguments. For example, some arguments have controversial premises. In this
case, it is probably best to argue against one of the premises. Other arguments however,
will have premises that seem very plausible. In this situation, it may be better to think
about whether the conclusion really follows from the premises (even if they are true), or
perhaps you might try to refute the argument indirectly. Below are some strategies that
may help you effectively refute an argument.
II- Strategies for refuting an argument:
1. Provide an argument that one or more of the premises is false (Premise attack)
This strategy is to argue that a premise is false or insufficiently supported. Let’s call this
premise attack.
Let’s see an example:
Remember one of Hardin’s arguments:
1. Rich countries are analogous to lifeboats.
2. Poor countries are analogous to people drowning in the water.
3. People in life boats do not have an obligation to help those drowning in the
water, because if they did, everyone would die.
Refuting an Argument 2012
4
4. Therefore, Rich countries have no obligation to help poor countries
Hardin assumes that rich countries are analogous to poor countries, but this seems
dubious. The people on lifeboats have scarce resources such that if they give any of their
resources to the people drowning in the water, there is a very good chance everyone will
die. But rich countries have an overabundance of resources. Rich countries such as the
U.S., however, produce more food than people can eat. Farmers often produce so much
grain that it ends up rotting in grain silos before anyone can consume it. So, no U.S. lives
would be seriously threatened if we gave away some of our resources to poor countries.
In this way, rich countries are not analogous to lifeboats. Therefore, Hardin’s first
premise is false.
Tips:
When you argue that a premise is false, make sure you make explicit: a) what premise of
the argument you are objecting to, and b) why the author (or position) needs that premise
to be true in order for their argument to succeed. Make sure that the premise you are
attributing to the author is one they in fact rely on in the argument. Also, be sure that
when you use this strategy, you provide an argument that the premise is false. Don’t just
stamp your foot and declare it to be false – you have to give reasons for why reasonable
people should find the premise dubious. If you just say it is false without saying why, you
risk begging the question against the author.
2. Show that the argument is not valid or not strong.
This is a difficult strategy to use if the argument is a very complicated one. That is, if you
are examining a complicated argument, it may be more difficult to tell whether the
conclusion follows from the premises. But, if the premises of the argument do not seem
to lend support for the conclusion, then this sort of strategy can be extremely effective,
Refuting an Argument 2012
5
because you do not have to debate the plausibility of the premises.
Here’s an example of an argument and an objection that employs this strategy:
1. Human beings, in virtue of their biology, have a natural tendency to survive.
2. Euthanasia acts contrary to this natural tendency.
3. Therefore, euthanasia is morally wrong.
Let us suppose that the premises of this argument are true. Nonetheless, the conclusion
does not follow. We have several natural tendencies that are the result of our biology, but
that doesn’t make acting against these tendencies morally wrong. For example, we might
have, in virtue of our biology, a natural tendency to be selfish. Of course, we do not think
that performing self-less actions for the good of others is morally wrong. So, just because
we have a natural tendency against something, it does not follow that it is wrong.
Therefore, the above argument is weak.
Tips:
You can show that an argument is invalid or weak by offering a counter-example to the
argument. In the above objection, the author attempts to give a counter example to the
argument that because something is unnatural, it is wrong. That is, the author attempts to
show that the argument is weak by giving another instance when something is unnatural,
but we do not think it is wrong. This helps to show that something’s being unnatural is
not good evidence for its being morally wrong. What is good about the author’s counter-
example here is that it consists of a plausible premise: “We have a natural tendency to be
selfish” and a conclusion that is clearly false: “Acting for the good of others is morally
wrong.” This makes it clear that the premises, even if true, don’t provide good evidence
for the conclusion. One way that it is easy to go wrong with this strategy is by
misrepresenting the argument you are objecting to. If you think an argument is invalid,
make sure that you are using the Principle of Rational Discussion in interpreting the
argument. Remember - some arguments will need to be repaired. It is only after you have
judged the argument to be unrepairable that you should use this strategy.
Refuting an Argument 2012
6
3. Show that the conclusion is false.
This is perhaps the most difficult strategy to use effectively. The reason is that you do not
want to beg the question against your opponent. Imagine a debate between a Pro-Life and
a Pro-Choice advocate:
Pro-Lifer: We all agree that it is wrong to inflict pain on living creatures. That is
why we think animal cruelty is wrong. Well, fetuses develop pain receptors by the
10th week of pregnancy. Abortions after the 9th week, then, will inflict pain on a
living creature. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
How can the Pro-Choice advocate respond? She cannot effectively respond by simply
saying:
Pro-Choicer: Yeah, but it is false that abortion is wrong, so your argument is
mistaken.
She cannot effectively respond this way, because this response begs the very questions at
stake. That is, it just asserts that abortion is wrong, which was the proposition we were
arguing about!
If you are going to show that the conclusion of an argument is false, you have to give
some independent argument for why we should think it is false. This can be a good
strategy to use for either a) arguments that seem valid and the premises are difficult to
verify, or b) strong arguments with plausible premises.
For example:
1. The pilot on the plane reported having trouble with the jet’s tail.
2. Therefore, it is likely that a malfunction in the tail caused the crash.
This argument may initially seem plausible, but scientists working on the wreckage
for months have found no problem with the tail. They now believe that the tail would
have been working properly at the time of the crash. This suggests that something else
Refuting an Argument 2012
7
caused the jet to crash.
In this case, the refutation works, because it shows that there is reason, despite the
argument, for thinking that the conclusion is false. Notice that this refutation does not just
try to reject the original argument, rather, the refutation tries to show that there are better
reasons for thinking that the conclusion is false.
Tips:
Attacking an argument in this way may be enough to simply question whether its
conclusion is true, but if a given argument that is being attacked has a certain degree of
strength, merely questioning its conclusion may not be sufficient. What the attacker needs
to do in such a case is to put forward a second argument that is stronger than the original
argument and that provides evidence for rejecting the conclusion of the original
argument. Such an attack is sufficient to defeat the original argument, unless its
proponent can give further reasons to support it.
4. Indirectly Refuting an Argument: Reducing to the Absurd.
This strategy involves refuting an argument by showing that the conclusion or the
premises of the argument lead to either a) a contradiction, or b) absurd, or highly counter-
intuitive consequences. We basically saw this sort of strategy in the article about John
Rocker that we read. The Seattle Times had argued:
1. John Rocker said racist things about New Yorkers.
2. It is wrong to say things that upset people.
3. Therefore, he ought to be punished.
The Times is claiming that it is wrong to say things that upset people. But, we have the
right to free speech in this country. So, the Times must be claiming that speech that
upsets people ought not to be protected by the First Amendment. But, if this were the
case, then the Times itself would not be protected by the First Amendment, as it often
Refuting an Argument 2012
8
prints things that upset people. Of course, it is absurd to think that the Times ought not to
be protected by the First Amendment. Thus, the Times was wrong to argue that Rocker
ought to be punished for saying things that upset people.
Tips:
When using this strategy, be careful not to commit the slippery slope fallacy by accident.
Again, be sure that you are correct in the claims you attribute to an author.
5. Showing that an argument has committed an informal fallacy.
This is really just a variation on strategy 2. The more familiar you are with informal
fallacies (a type of fallacy in which the content of the argument is relevant to its
fallaciousness), the easier it will be to spot those fallacies in arguments. In general, when
you claim that an argument commits an informal fallacy, the same tips that applied to
strategy 2 will also apply here. Also remember that in giving a refutation to an argument,
it is just as important for you to avoid committing a fallacy, such as Strawman, Slippery
Slope, or Begging the Question.
III- Some general dos and don’ts to help you win arguments
1. Dos:
Stay calm. Even if you get passionate about your point you must stay cool
and in command of your emotions. If you lose your temper – you lose.
Use facts as evidence for your position. Facts are hard to refute so gather
some pertinent data before the argument starts. Surveys, statistics, quotes
from relevant people and results are useful arguments to deploy in support
of your case.
Refuting an Argument 2012
9
Ask questions. If you can ask the right questions you can stay in control of
the discussion and make your opponent scramble for answers. You can ask
questions that challenge his point, ‘What evidence do you have for that
claim?’ You can ask hypothetical questions that extrapolate a trend and
give your opponent a difficulty, ‘What would happen if every nation did
that?’ Another useful type of question is one that calmly provokes your foe,
‘What is about this that makes you so angry?’
Use logic. Show how one idea follows another. Build your case and use
logic to undermine your opponent.
Appeal to higher values. As well as logic you can use a little emotion by
appealing to worthy motives that are hard to disagree with, ‘Shouldn’t we
all be working to make the world better and safer for our children?’
Listen carefully. Many people are so focused on what they are going to say
that they ignore their opponent and assume his arguments. It is better to
listen carefully. You will observe weaknesses and flaws in his position and
sometimes you will hear something new and informative!
Be prepared to concede a good point. Don’t argue every point for the
sake of it. If your adversary makes a valid point then agree but outweigh it
with a different argument. This makes you looked reasonable. ‘I agree with
you that prison does not reform prisoners. That is generally true but prison
still acts effectively as a deterrent and a punishment.’
Study your opponent. Know their strengths, weaknesses, beliefs and
values. You can appeal to their higher values. You can exploit their
weaknesses by turning their arguments back on them.
Look for a win-win. Be open-minded to a compromise position that
accommodates your main points and some of your opponent’s. You cannot
both win in a boxing match but you can both win in a negotiation.
2. Don’ts
Refuting an Argument 2012
10
Get personal. Direct attacks on your opponent’s lifestyle, integrity or
honesty should be avoided. Attack the issue not the person. If the other party
attacks you then you can take the high ground e.g.’ I am surprised at you
making personal attacks like that. I think it would be better if we stuck to the
main issue here rather than maligning people.’
Get distracted. Your opponent may try to throw you off the scent by
introducing new and extraneous themes. You must be firm. ‘That is an
entirely different issue which I am happy to discuss later. For the moment
let’s deal with the major issue at hand.’
Water down your strong arguments with weak ones. If you have three
strong points and two weaker ones then it is probably best to just focus on
the strong. Make your points convincingly and ask for agreement. If you
carry on and use the weaker arguments then your opponent can rebut them
and make your overall case look weaker.
IV- Conclusion
Refutation is necessary for a quality debate because it promotes direct clash between
arguments, therefore to dispute an argument effectively you not only must master the
skills of refutation but also need understand deeply the refutation strategies in order to
apply them flexibly in any situation, particularly when a debate occurs. There still have a
lot of other strategies that can help you succeed in refuting an argument; however a
noticeable thing is that each of them has its strengths and weaknesses so before using a
strategy let think about it carefully and never forget the most important rule: “To refute
an argument, you must argue against it. Asking questions is not enough. You must
present good reasons why its conclusions or reasons are wrong”
Refuting an Argument 2012
11
V- Reference
http://www.speechmastery.com/refutation.html
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/how-to-win-arguments-dos-donts-
and-sneaky-tactics.html
http://faculty.mdc.edu/dmcguirk/ENC2106/refutation.htm
https://sites.google.com/site/anintroductiontodebate/lectures/2-more-advanced-
material/1-refutation-strategies