Argumentation I
by Donald E. Hester
on Friday, 09 January 2009
Blogging
0 Comments
Donald E. Hester
Husband, father, and adventurer. A computer science instructor who dabbles in t
User is currently offline
I have been listening to some debates recently and realized that winning a debate does not make the premise true. The Truth of a statement is independent of how well defenders argue it. I have seen some website comments on some of the debates I have listened to and everyone thinks that their 'guy' won the debate. Truth is truth independent of someone ability to convince you otherwise.
I have been listening to debates because I think it is a great way to hear both sides of a position. It makes it easier for you to conclude for yourself the validity of the premises offered. I understand that I am finite, that is to say, I have limited knowledge. Frankly, I don't know everything and would consider it arrogant to claim absolute proof. I look at everything as probability based on reason. I don’t think there is anything we can say for certain is 100% true for myself. What I can do is weigh the evidence for various possible premises and make a determination as to which is more likely. As time progresses I may find new facts and am then able to reevaluate the plausibility of a claim to truth.
I often hear in debates one opponent to ask the other what it would take them to change their mind. Often they will demand absolute proof, knowing full absolute proof is not forthcoming. If we used that criterion for court cases, we would never have a conviction. In court cases, we can determine an outcome based upon a reasonable evaluation of the evidence.
Personally, I don’t have absolute proof that we went to the moon. I have no experiential evidence, meaning I was not there when it happened. Does that mean I don’t think we went to the moon. Absolutely not! I have seen compelling evidence and rely upon eyewitness accounts that were passed on to me by third parties. I don’t have absolute proof. What I do have is faith based on reason. It is not absolute or a probability of 1 (100%) for me. I might give it a probability of .75. Later I might go to Marshall Space Center and see on display the rockets used. This new evidence might be able to increase the plausibility of the moon landing in my mind then I might increase the probability to .85 and after I see a moon rock in a museum, I might increase it again to .95. I now have a high confidence level that the moon landing really did occur. However, there is still a possibility, even if very remote, that the moon landing did not occur, which given reason is extremely improbable.
You see in debates often when people start throwing out highly improbable possibilities as a means to discredit a premise. A person’s ability to creatively come up with possibilities does not disprove or change the probability of the premise in question. These other possibilities need to have a compelling evidence to get a greater probability then the original premise. I can sit here all day and come up with alternative possible scenarios that can explain some evidence you have for the moon landing. That doesn't make any of them true or your premise false, it simply means I have an imagination.
In summary an argument is weak if the debater has to demand absolute proof or if the debater avoids refuting the evidence and only throws out improbable possibilities.
PS I give the moon landing a very high probability of truth.
I am trying to figure out what I should have as my inaugural post. I am thinking that it should be something catchy, something that drives people back to read it again and again.