I've always said the best way to "win" an argument is to understand your opponents argument better than they do; that is, assuming you still find your argument more compelling.
It’s really not a great way to win. You usually end up explaining all of the implicit assumptions to the person you’re arguing with, who doesn’t even fully understand their own argument. Then the person gets mad and blocks you.
@@tomcotter4299 My argument implicitly assumes a good faith debate. Regardless, whether my opponent does or not, it is best for me that I should have the drive to seriously consider the strongest arguments on both sides.
Generally in my experience most arguments end in 1 of 2 ways, with one side questioning the validity of the claim and the validity of the validity, And asking if there is a under lying agenda, and tend to never find a anyone who can verify the claim that is vetted enough. Generally it ends with people saying your sources are fake and that scientists are lying.
@@TheCRAZYEYES1000 Well that is an understandable conclusion. Why does it matter what scientists say or the source of the information? The only thing that matters in science is THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS. Appealing to crendetials and appealing to Authority are both logical fallacies. let's take Quantum Mechanics. There is the mathematical formalism and the experimental results which no one argues with because that is all repeatable. However there are multiple interpretations of what those results mean. This demonstrates that relying :"a scientist said it" says nothing about the truth of a proposition .
I love your videos so much. Way to be a voice of calm reason in a world where so many are either holed up in their echo chambers or simply yelling past each other. 💙
Yes Ryan, people often make the mistake of taking pride in their beliefs. When they get challenged, cognitive dissonance gets in the way of clear thinking.
Jargon is necessary for experts, but general audiences often struggle with this aspect of expertise. thus the challenge of informing the general public is one of minimizing jargon without betraying necessary nuance
I'm new to your channel and loving it. About the use of standard terminology: I get so tired of debates when one or both sides argue "it depends on what you mean by 'bla, bla, bla'". And they get stuck on debating about the terms and not the subject itself. It would be good practice to start every debate by defining key terms that are mutually acceptable by both sides. Thanks for your content!
I only started watching your channel recently, but so far I have really been impressed by your clarity of thought. Now I am beginning to understand why your thinking seems so clear, it's because your ability to reason and communicate that reasoning is so well developed. However, I cannot watch too many of your videos at once, because watching your videos challenges me to think so hard, I could become too overwhelmed with thought. This channel should be required study in high schools. Please keep up the good work.
Yes! Your third point on terminology is one that I have seen a lot recently. It seems like some people want the emotional/historical/cultural impact of a specific term, but attach it to a somewhat related idea that they are arguing for/against. Really interesting thoughts!
It doesn’t help that in modern times many different people self-identify or outright name their groups with complex stated beliefs even if they don’t actually follow them - and so terms can meander between referring to the stated belief and referring to the actual/apparent beliefs of the people who name themselves after them or the movements with the same name that night or might not espouse the ideas.
An argument is an attempt to find the correct answer to a question. The problem arises when you’re asking the wrong question in the first place. When this happens, the result is that even though your argument is correct, it’s incomplete and leads to the wrong conclusion. We know that two seemingly contradictory statement could both be true, as long as there is a logical explanation that disproves those seeming contradiction. Not to mention that not everybody is equally skillful in communicating their arguments. When you’re just focusing on your correct argument, legitimate ideas get buried by your “good” argument.
I would argue that asking the wrong questions is a symptom rather than the problem. Most people focus with an argument is winning it rather than truth seeking through it. As such they're often using "wrong" questions and other tricks which will let them be more convincing.
Your honest and simple evaluations of the subjects you speak ok are so refreshing. The idea of objective argument is so lost on the world now though, with everything being lived experience and feeling based, I wonder if we can even hold arguments with each other anymore
I completely agree with point 4. The other day, was discussing a point of religious doctrine with a friend. The conversation seemed to be going in circles, so I asked them to give me a one sentence version of the point they wanted to discuss. After hearing this friend ramble for a paragraph or two, I decided that I couldn't agree because there wasn't enough clarity to the argument. Every argument should have a clear and concise thesis. That doesn't mean you need to lead with it or even say it outright, but it should be clear and simple deep down.
Ryan, believe me when I say that in your arguments, the plainness NEVER becomes counterproductive. Please don't change your style! You are already achieving the perfect balance of valuable information presented artfully. In this age of trolls, bots, conspiracies and "alternative facts," your clear, calm and concise videos are oases of rationality, where the curious can safely drink the cool waters of knowledge without fear of an angle, a pitch, or a knife in the back.
Glad I found your channel Ryan, you offer views that are of value...the Chinese had a proverb that touches on this... "he who frames the question, frames the answer" How questions or thoughts are framed shape the path from which the discussion flows. Additionally, there are logic based arguments vs emotionally based ones. That is, one is quantifiable in nature that seeks causation vs the subjective which is typically correlation.
Kudos and appreciation for the clarity added by you explaining nuances one has to be looking at the screen to make obvious, as I frequently do listen to videos without much essential image content while doing other tasks like washing dishes - and it saves me having to run back to the office to see what is being illustrated, if I even realize I've missed something.
These videos are super great. I appreciate the detail, and the objectivity and clarity in how you get to your conclusions. Thanks for taking the time to share this with me, and you know, the world. 😉
I find this video useful and also I can advise to watch How to Win a Debate Without Even Trying | Socratic Questioning by “ Unsolicited advice “. Especially it starts with the asking the definition of each opponent, and good example is America is a democratic state. What is democratic for you and for your opponent. There 6 key points of Socrates questioning and I will also add additional details: Learn to listen not hear. Learn to detach yourself emotionally. Don’t change the subject and also don’t let your opponent change it. Control your breath , you're tone and don’t take it personally. Thank you Ryan for your wonderful work.
I always do my best to use simple, concise language, but some concepts or ideas are very complex with no common frame of reference, so they require their own explanation within any argument. It makes for a long and complex argument, which can be difficult due to the average person's attention span these days.
YT is doing something to your channel ..i am NOT getting any notifications for your channel after( What Makes An Argument 'Good') video ..u clearly r doing something right
Regarding the fourth point,Reagan was excellent in that.the way he used humour with simple language helped him immensely.well the substance of his speeches can be questioned but it was effective.
No-one is convinced by an argument that isn't made. I keep seeing people stating the banal truth that 'some people can't be convinced,' but stating this just isn't helpful. Religious belief is a prime example of something that is very difficult to argue someone out of, but we do have innumerable examples of people being argued out of it. The personal accounts of these changes of faith seem to suggest that it is a slow process - that there is no single argument that sways, but that they accumulate in the person's mind, presenting a sense of unease that grows with time, until it all crystallizes and the person changes their mind. Thus 'apparent lack of success' is not equivalent to failing. Therefore, whilst there indubitably exists some number of persons whose minds truly cannot be changed, this fact is ultimately beside the point, because you are unlikely to be able to accurately determine who they are due to the delayed effects that arguments can have. In this, you truly can lose every fight, but still win the war. == Consider for a moment what it takes to convince you of something. You likely have some standard that an argument must abide by to be considered credible or convincing. Each person has a different such standard. So in a sense, the 'game of argument' is one we 'play blindly, not knowing the rules our opponent requires of us for us to win.' This suggests that adjusting your argument to suit the person whom you are trying to convince will increase your chances of success. The adage 'it isn't what you say, but how you say it' comes to mind. == To summarize in list form; Alternative explanations to 'Some people can't be convinced'; 1. You failed to identify the effect your argument had. (you swayed them, but people rarely change their mind on the spot so expecting success in the moment is misplaced) 2. You failed, not because of them, but because of you. (convincing people is a skill, and you could lack it - another person could succeed where you failed) 2.1. You didn't want to spend more time on it. (which is fair, but declaring it impossible does a disservice to the person, yourself, and others)
@@uruson Summary is great if all parties involved are adhering to reason/logic. My point is more and more people are arguing from false premises based off poor imperial data, heavily laced with emotional perspectives. You’re advice is rubbish because it recognize how emotional arguments tend to unravel. When you commit heresy against somebody’s god, their immediate impulse is to react emotionally. The problem lies in peoples unwillingness to have their world views drastically altered. If i was to give any advice, it would be; Do not argue with religious people. Inquiry about their beliefs and see how fleshed out they are. Then, if you’re lucky, they will start asking questions themselves.
@@orangestapler8729 i would challenge you to seek out the difference and ask clarifying questions. Evidently, i didn’t make myself clear enough. We both partly agree with each other, However I’m trying to make the distinction that his advice does little when having religious arguments, and religious arguments are easier to understand when you interpret them as emotional arguments. There’s very little logic in emotional arguments.However, that not at all an attempt to downplay the value of emotional arguments, much less the value of religion. As to why im engaging at all, im curious about ideas and theres only one way to encounter new ideas, by sharing your own ideas.
Example #2 #3 Affirming the Consequent through ad hoc reasoning #2 (kinda how science is done) also the second premise is conditned on the subject and predicate of premise 1. For example #3 The second premise fully affirms the Consequent. Which is a formal fallcy.
I really was glad to hear the last few moments when R.C. made a plea for compassion, patience, that a argument isn't invalid because of mistaken parts in it, or an erroneous conclusion meaning the entire premise is without value. I will be so delighted if I ever find myself in an environment where I do not instantly and without fail expect to find arguments on anything, anything, to be potentially exhausting, confusing, apt to be suddenly presented by recourse to raised voice, if not shouting, that I may someday have an argument or discussion and then, wondering why that wasn't almost defeating any points made by the illogical methods used because I'm used to the other individual often willing to be irrational and win, that is, force my resignation and weariness, actually to have found that things were worked through or understandings made in a calm, or even if passionate, not a drawn out match where sometimes you may not get more words you've said not interrupted than the usual abrupt cut-off, well, I'm happy to believe that I would likely think myself gone mad and in need of hospitalization! And it would still be a relief, it feels like so often. Ah, is it really ever possible to have arguments without tenseness, stress, defensiveness in expectation of your logic being turned to use against you without any method to it at all? I cannot be alone in this, and I must be wrong as often as anyone, is there any place left in the world outside presidential debates, of course () where it's a normal occurance to expect anything very different, if even in scale, from what I know to expect if I should be in need of explaining myself or my reasoning to another who I'll not be dismissive just to escape? I would be in error more than a toddler lacking speech function yet just to be wrong rationaley a decent amount of the time. I'm quivering a bit just writing about it. And it's not everyone all the time or one person every time but most people most of the time; but that's probably bias by now. I figured that since it's been more and more prevalent in my life and to a extent in public too that it's just like this to some degree or other for most. Yet another thing I will be only too happy to be shown that I've been wrong or unreasonable about. Sorry, I didn't expect to write so much thank you for the well defined exposition on deductive and inductive argument and the ways that their premises are used, and anyone who took time to read this thank to you also.
I feel like redefining terms is especially pernicious. Some people do it intentionally in order to win an argument and push for their ideology. Just look at Patrica Bidol who came up with the meme “P+P=R” and admitted she did so in order to win political arguments against moderate Americans. Then a whole bunch of people adopt that meme and our discourse is swamped in arguments over definitions. Redefining words really rubs me the wrong way.
Yea it can be tricky. Like he said words change over time. I'm only 28 but if I had to talk about politics and the word "privilege" was used to mean "advantage" and that was a key word, I'm not sure I could continue the discussion without it turning into talking about talking, which is totally unfortunate as it is unavoidable.
In short, spending the entire "debate" deliberating over semantics. Essentially the best way for many to not have to actually engage with the topic at hand because they dig their heels in before the true debate even starts. Best to define your terms and ask your opponent to do the same and debate based on those answers to avoid the semantical rabbit hole.
i luv da ending of dis vid. making good arguments is very hard for even da smartest people but we shud never fault people if we find flaws but rather suggest improvements. :)
At the University of York, aspect 1 is taught as: An argument is good such that if your premises are true, then your conclusion cannot be false. An important part of this is making sure that there are no non-sequiters in your argument, which can usually be solved with a bridge premise.
17:29 I find there to be extreme bitterness to this part. When I was younger, I constantly found myself annoyed by the ambiguity of language. To be able to better articulate what my intentions were, I endeavoured to enrich my vocabulary to circumvent the problem of ambiguity... Until I reached the point where people commented that "I used too much difficult language". Absolutely crestfallen by this, I completely dropped my native language right thereafter (this coincided with the bastardization of my already highly flawed and poor language) and instead fully focused on improving my English. This part of the video is twofold. It's not just 'obscurity' through 'impressive language'; it should also include the traps and dangers of ambiguity, which is equally obscuring of one's intentions. This, to me, is proof that language itself is an ever-present barrier for conveying one's intent.
12:30 or so: good example, especially since American is a term that not everyone uses the way you do. Some people consider those from all of North and South America to be Americans, others consider only people from North Americans to be Americans, others still refer to those from the U.S and Canada as Americans.
I liked your closing statement very much, that no one is above making mistakes in their argument and therefore making a bad argument should not invalidate them as thinkers, but what I felt was missing in contrast and needs to be stated, is that no one is beneath making a good argument, and that good arguments with valid premises can/should/do have merit in their own right. Unfortunately, with field specific premises we cannot determine their truth/validity without relying on the social merit of individuals participating in the debate.
Too bad that YT doesn't have other reactions to videos besides the thumbs up or down buttons. I would heart all of your videos Ryan. They are always well made and I always learn new things. Thank you.
Ryan, you have made some good arguments here. With regard to your third aspect, I think you would do well to consider the ideas of "stasis theory" which posits that argumentation exists in layers: facts, definitions, quality, policy and venue. We see a variation of this type of argument in the law when we are describing the elements of a crime.
Good work. The problem with the notion of standard terminology is that some of us are fluent in English, but we do not live in a native English environment. Then our understanding of English is more of a literary character than of a commonly spoken character. The common usage of a term is not always the same as the dictionary definition of a term. I find that this creates many unnecessary misunderstandings. A good example of such a term is religion. It is of Latin origin and therefore, connected to my native environment by Latin tradition of the Catholic church in Eastern Europe (Latin word religio). If used in an American environment, the majority start thinking of religion in protestant terms. This creates a lot of confusion. Especially with regard to many other terms in the English language that are of Latin and Greek origin. I find that the Aristotelian argument of "How many a dispute could have been deflated into a single paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms!" Is much more useful, than the notion of a standard terminology. To effectively communicate means to find common terminology.
This is a great breakdown of how to assess an argument's logical quality. The fourth aspect you discussed made me wonder about rhetoric. I'd love to hear yours and other people's opinions about how the emotional and aesthetic aspects of rhetoric can interplay with logical construction to make a good or bad argument more or less persuasive. Especially online, I think people often rely on rhetorical devices to prop up poor logic. But, I also think emotional appeals and aesthetic construction are not trite or surface level aspects of persuasion. I think of some of the great films I've seen which persuaded me on a particular topic by appealing to my empathy for another human being's experience. I think some people who understand how to construct a logical argument may be more prone to neglect these other aspects of rhetoric. Do you think neglecting ethos and pathos can weaken an argument just as neglecting logos can? Or do you think logic is far more important to constructing an argument than these other aspects? Thanks again and I hope to hear what you think!
Very good point. I was also thinking about that. Maybe we can say the word rhetoric you choose as a visual/emotional influence. As we know a good film or a good news presentation can charge us emotionally absolutely about anything. We can also feel emotional support for a bad idea just because of that rhetoric or presentation style. Maybe we can think as a example of US influence in world media or cinema. Sometimes those presentation influence us to choose the side or what is the topic we need to talk about. So a rhetoric can be a very influential but logically not accurate. And a good logical argument or idea can be not satisfactory emotionally because of lack of good rhetoric or presentation . Or the rhetoric or emotionally influence of opposite idea is so strong that this idea can’t compete in winning hearts of people by only giving logical arguments. So the point is that a idea can maybe logically true but not satisfactory emotionally bcz of lack of rhetoric skills. So A good visionary leader of any ideology should focus on both sides.
I think ,while you are asking if ethos and pathos can bolster or detract from logos, they are only secondary to logos. Now while a "good" argument may be so on merits alone(logos only), it having an appeal or accepted by others is a whole different question. In politics, where you need acceptance of your logos, pathos and ethos will be crucial. In academia, they can even cloud your logos. Just my take.
Minor counter-argument to aspect #4: What if something is actually complicated? (Then you still shouldn't make it even more complicated, but it may be hard to make a truly plain argument.) Also making an overly complicated argument may mean you're arguing in bad faith, but it may also mean that you're just bad at expressing stuff plainly (this can actually be pretty hard, especially if something "obvious" isn't so obvious to others)
12:38 I think this is the scariest thing about modern debate. One of the most devious tactics being deployed is to literally change the definition of what words mean in order to "win arguments". To me that's evidence of a "bad argument" in and of itself, but if you happen to be on the side of the people in charge of changing the definitions, then congratulations your "good argument" has now been made "bad" by proxy. Whoever controls language, controls everything.
Excellent rational argument. I like how you didn't leave it at the first aspect (which is pure logic), but also tackle the ways we can fool ourselves (and audiences). There's one shortcoming though. It is good at making a reasoned argument. But not as good for convincing others - which is what we use arguments for. That's where rhetoric comes in (as you do note at point 4). If you make a perfectly logical argument, but nobody's convinced by it, what did you accomplish? Unfortunately, rhetoric can also be convincing while the argument is bad. Therefore an ethical arguer must be careful. He should use rhetoric to strengthen his persuasion. But the persuasion shouldn't be doing the legwork: else you'll fall to dishonesty. This applies to rhetoric. It also applies to advertising. Even for making yourself up for a date or a job interview. It matters. You'll likely do poorly without it. But it shouldn't carry you. Because if you scored that date only because you hid behind a painting, how long will that last? If (s)he's foolish enough to keep falling for it, is that a marriage worth having? Does anyone enjoy getting rich by selling crap? Do you want to have a job you suck at? Is it worth ruling, if you build a country on the quicksand of lies?
It would be nice to hear his breakdown of the conservative philosophy/ ideology. Has done a fairly good job of explaining left leaning ideologies and philosophies in a mostly unbiased way.
Thanks again Ryan, for a very good argument cum lesson. Your research and clear thinking should be much appreciated, especially because of the amazing IT revolution we are all now having to swim in.
I've only recently found your channel, and I absolutely love your work, even when I disagree. I fully understand why you used simplified examples, but it's important to acknowledge some of the complications. I'm thinking specifically about aspect 3, regarding terminology. As I'm writing this, gun laws are very much in the news, because of a recent mass shooting in Texas. There are MANY terms used in gun debates which are poorly defined and not agreed upon, so let's consider something simpler like homelessness. If I wanted to argue that homes should be provided, we'd have to first agree to what a home is. "Home" is a very common word, known to all but the very youngest children, so everyone knows what a home is, right? Does a home need a toilet? There are homes in existence today, in the US, without indoor plumbing, so maybe not. Maybe a home is just a shelter. When hurricane Katrina refugees went to the astrodome, were they sheltered? Were they homed? Okay, so maybe home is a tricky word, let's talk about abortion instead. What's a baby? Everyone knows what a baby is, right? Defining terms is an integral part of making any consequential argument. And if either I or the person across the table wishes to redefine those terms, not only is it debatable and this acceptable, it's expected. I cannot think of a commonly debated topic, in which definitions are not also debated. Thanks again for your efforts; I subscribed after two videos. 👍
Of course swans are destroying our desert. If a swan flaps its wings in WI it rains in the Gobi dessert. Chaos theory man. 😆 On a more serious note I just found this channel yesterday and love it. I see you haven't uploaded anything in awhile and hope that means you haven't abandoned it. In the world we live in were people seem to be abandoning reason and objectivity we need it more than ever.
14:16 Sadly online dictionaries may not be trustworthy in this regard, as they might follow political trends. We've seen this long since with Wikipedia, which has a strong political slant to the left in some countries. "The Lancet" is another institution that is no longer trustworthy since it started using terms like "birthing people", clearly indicating that they put ideology over science. So for dictionaries it is advisable to have a paper version that can't be easily manipulated at home for reference. I agree that common language and an ernest effort to communicate clearly is an important part of a good argument. Sadly for many important subjects we don't even have a good argument in a public forum. When people are "cancelled" at universities because some people claim to be "harmed" by someone presenting a controversial stand point, when proper use of language is being hampered by claiming all kinds of utterances to be "microaggressions" and words to be "violence", and when our society is increasingly polarized, so there is no common ground to build on and no common forum to comminucate in, then it becomes increasingly difficult to have a proper argument. Instead of arguments we see more and more moral posturing. Greta Thunbergs "How dare you!" speech is a fine example of that.
The clarity aspect is very important. If we want to be understood and understand each other we should make an effort to let our language reflect that. If we don't do that we unnecessarily risk misunderstandings. For example scientists tend to use highly specific terminology when writing papers. This is to convey a lot of information about specific subjects to an audience, that is familiar with these terms. For the general public however we need science communicators to break these down into simpler terms to be understood, which necessarily drops some meaning. That situation could be improved, but in general seems to be acceptable as we get more science communicators. Staying in the scientific context, I see a lot of unnecessarily complex speech however. This in my view can be traced back to the desires to belong to a certain group, to be perceived as being intelligent and to be taken seriously. I believe, that we all can improve society by judging statements not by their wording, but rather by what meaning they try to bring across, by trying to phrase our statements as simple as possible, instead of praising and trying to be praised for sentences, that need thorough reading to be understood. It is not easy to do. I don't even think I managed to do a good job with this comment. An effort we should make nonetheless.
While I agree with you that good arguments are stated plainly, I can also see counter arguments to it. A lot of the people who argue in this manner (mainly in academia, but that's where this aspect is most relevant) try to focus on precision of language and as such end up using complex sentences and field specific terms to try and get their point across. A good argument needs to have a balance between that precision and simplyfing it enough for the sake of clarity, which can be hard to achieve. Of course, in academia it morphed far past that into more of a cultural norm where arguments needs a level of complexity in order to gain legitimacy, even when it's not necessary. And in other fields there are bad faith actors who use complexity in order to make their arguments seem intellegent regardless of their actual content, so there's definitely things to be aware of.
I think for the reasoning section, it would make much more sense to approach it from the more rigorous side - some formal logic. An introduction to aristotelean logic (probably better for this than discrete math or modern symbolic logic) would help. In that framing, terms like 'valid argument' have a useful technical meaning (structure is ok regardless of the truth value of the premises), and it can help to reveal that there is a 'skeleton' that all arguments sit on, and you can know things about an argument based on that structure (e.g. how to simplify it).
Great talk. I wonder 2 things though: 1. In general: Can most people draw the line from your very abstract and unrealistic examples (swans, etc) to real arguments that employ the same mistakes (i.e. probably 89.5% of their facebook timeline?) I am pretty sure I know why you chose these abstract examples, but I wonder if it would be clearer if you used real examples of common current arguments? (I know, maybe that won't work, because depending on what "side" (political, medical, sociological, etc.) the examples come from it may make a big portion of listeners tune out (if they feel "their side" is being attacked) 2. Specifically (11:31) : I think the "redefining terms" portion needs a big caveat. Sometimes it really IS necessary to redefine terms. Especially in very ingrained arguments that simply never move forward, part of the problem may be that the very terms being used, do not allow for a new way of seeing things. You say "progress is made by replacing old arguments with better ones. So the terms need to be constant" But I would add that in as many cases "progress is made by challenging the very terms on which old assumptions are based". So to me, what would define a good redefinition of terms would be that it is made EXPLICITLY and PRIOR to constructing an argument based on the new terms. A BAD argument would simply redefine the terms, while PRETENDING to argue based on the old terms--a slight of hand that seems common in many political discussions. So, if Pedro started by saying "ok, let's look at the word "cheating". Given that I was honest about my intentions with the other woman and you, and did not pretend to promise you or her anything other than what I did (and felt), how is this "cheating"? In my opinion that would not be a bad argument...of course he'd still end up on the couch (if lucky) or with a divorce (more likely) but he could feel good about having made a decent argument! ;-) Some actual arguments in society: Modern Monetary Theory is, in my estimation, making good arguments, even though it is completely redefining terms such as "national debt" and "budget deficit"--because it is completely open about setting out to redefine these terms and explains why it thinks this is necessary (I'm just saying it is arguing correctly, not saying anything about if the theory is correct) The argument about "racism", when presumed to mean "systemic racism" seems to me, to sometimes be a "bad argument" when the traditional understanding of "racist" is simply replaced by a new understanding of the word, WITHOUT explicitly explaining that this is what the arguer is doing (as in saying "you are racist" when actually meaning: "you have benefited from historical societal systems that gave you advantages because of your race") Oh, and of course, Einstein (since you showed him in the video), completely redefined terms such as "time", "space", "gravity", etc. Anyway: By using these real world examples I am testing out my theory posited in point 1. XD
15:00 Alright, so it sounds like you may actively disagree with my caveat to the redefining of words (based on the Bartrand Russell quote). I would say, that there are probably a lot of people (I'd assume linguists in particular, as well as anyone who believes that (a large part of) our reality is actually primarily constructed by language) that would disagree with Russell on this and say that (maybe not always, but certainly often) our words and terms change FIRST, and our view of reality changes as as an effect of the language--at least that seems to me to be a valid position that can be argued for (and if we need a big name, worthy of providing a counterpoint to an intellectual giant like Russell, I may suggest Wittgenstein?...but then I probably misunderstand him anyway and therefore: "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.")
I debated for years in high school and another point that often was brought up was "Uniqueness" -- for a listed premise to "count" it has to be at least relatively unique to the conclusion at hand. Let me give an example: Premise 1: Drinking water consumes energy Premise 2: Consuming energy creates wasteful byproducts Conclusion: We should stop drinking water in order to conserve energy This seemingly makes sense on paper aside. How do you argue against this? One way is to say "The advantages that come with drinking water (life) outweigh the disadvantages of energy waste." But that is actually considered a "weaker" argument in debates (weighing pro's against con's is inherently subjective; according to WHO is life more important than energy waste? A _HUMAN_? they _would_ be biased!) The actual stronger argument to make is that _everything_ consumes energy. In fact, even _not drinking water_ costs energy. As a result, the argument that "consuming energy creates wasteful byproducts" is not a _unique argument_. It would apply to any position somebody could possibly take. This makes that argument _inherently abusive_. It basically says that, if such an argument were to be permitted, there exist no discussions to be had in the world. Any discussion somebody could possibly have would get shut down with "that consumes energy, and consuming energy creates wasteful byproducts." Saying that such an argument only exists to effectively stifle thought and discussion is a stronger argument against it than weighing out the pros & cons. This comes up all the time in the real world. People will say that form of energy generates waste, but so do . It makes more sense to compare the types & quantities of the waste than it does to dismiss the technology out-of-hand just due to creating waste. People will say that plan isn't a good idea because it will cost the government money; but ALL plans will cost the government money. A more reasonable approach would be to demonstrate how it's excessively wasteful or ineffective given the projected costs, not to just dismiss it out of hand as "costing money." And so on
I definitely think aspect 3 is your best one. Aspect 1 is obvious and reductively stated here, I've spent wayy to much time on this aspect of argumentation and still have alot to learn. Aspect 2 is, well, not really adequate to the problem. Literally everything is connected to everything else via the strucuture of belief if you are permitted to go both up and down the levels of premises and conclusions, so this statement seems unsatisfactory as it leads to an infinite regress if implemented, we need some kind of tool(s) to deal with the issue of scope. And aspect 4 is so subjective as to be useless except as a cheap criticism. As long as you don't violate aspects 1 and 3, there won't be an issue with 4 since people will self-select down to the audence subset that understands the level your speaking at. The great thing about aspect 3 is that it is both Extremely important and woefully under-emphasized in common discourse.
Hi Ryan Chapman! Thank you SOOO very for your brilliant and specific videos. I am CLEARLY getting smarter as I make my way through them. I came to your channel tonight to see if you had anything on what is a Constitutional Crisis? And what happens when we have one? Like, does it end up being decided by the Supreme Court. I'm currently focused on the debt limit work around with the 14th. But also on my mind is what if its about the corruption within the Supreme Court. If you have a video that talks about this, I can't find it, maybe you could give me a link? If not... do you take requests?🤔
A confusing issue with the second premise "Swans are a likely culprit" is that the premise is is itself an inference (the conclusion of argument -- inference to the best explanation). This makes the overall argument more complex. A more clear demonstration of the point would have premises that are simple statements of fact, which may be true or false, but are not stated as inferences.
On the meaning of terms I think an important consideration is that standard 'definitions' - or perhaps understandings - of these terms are often vague and imprecise. Thus in addition to not redefining terms, I think it's also often important to explicitly define key terms. To take the US democracy argument as an example. One person might say, "A democracy is a country which has regular free and fair elections and wherein power is transferred peacefully in accordance with the outcome of those elections." And on that basis - despite some recent shenanigans - they could pretty convincingly argue that the US is a democracy. However another person might define a democracy as, "A country in which government policy accurately reflects the will of the majority of the populace." On this measure the claim that the US is a democracy is on much shakier ground. Now, I'd contend both definitions fit pretty neatly within conventional understandings of democracy. Neither side is arguing in bad faith. Yet without explicitly establishing the definition of this term - at least for the purposes of this debate - both arguments are going to fly right past each other.
As someone who is most intrested in science I think I would add an extra * to your 4th point. The world often isn't as plain as we would like to be therefor when discribing it we need to state arguments as simple as they can possibly be while still being correct. In other words the level of clarity isn't beneficial to the strength of the agrument if a less clear (i. e. more complicated) agrument better discribes reality.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I've always said the best way to "win" an argument is to understand your opponents argument better than they do; that is, assuming you still find your argument more compelling.
This is very much along the lines of steelmanning someone's argument. A great way to go about a civil discussion.
It’s really not a great way to win. You usually end up explaining all of the implicit assumptions to the person you’re arguing with, who doesn’t even fully understand their own argument. Then the person gets mad and blocks you.
@@tomcotter4299 My argument implicitly assumes a good faith debate. Regardless, whether my opponent does or not, it is best for me that I should have the drive to seriously consider the strongest arguments on both sides.
Generally in my experience most arguments end in 1 of 2 ways, with one side questioning the validity of the claim and the validity of the validity, And asking if there is a under lying agenda, and tend to never find a anyone who can verify the claim that is vetted enough.
Generally it ends with people saying your sources are fake and that scientists are lying.
@@TheCRAZYEYES1000 Well that is an understandable conclusion.
Why does it matter what scientists say or the source of the information?
The only thing that matters in science is THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.
Appealing to crendetials
and
appealing to Authority are both logical fallacies.
let's take Quantum Mechanics.
There is the mathematical formalism and the experimental results which no one argues with because that is all repeatable.
However there are multiple interpretations of what those results mean.
This demonstrates that relying :"a scientist said it" says nothing about the truth of a proposition .
IF THIS ISNT THE BEST ARGUING COMMENTS SECTION ON RUclips IM GONNA BE SO UPSET WITH YOU ALL
Best channel on RUclips.
You're in the only place no one will contradict you
Subjective
It will forever amaze me that this channel doesn't have millions of subscribers.
It will "forever" amaze you? Even after it *does* end up with millions of subscribers?
Don't be a pessimist, Nate!
@@BS-vx8dgdamn, you beat their argument
This Pedro is an interesting guy.
Great video Ryan!
@Major 7ths: Pedro might be interesting, but he'd be a terrible President. He isn't even married!
@@BS-vx8dg I see what you did there. Also, just because Pedro is a white supremist, doesn't mean he should like lima beans too.
Love your work Ryan. Redefined terminology and lack of clarity are definitely problems in academic- and political-speak at the moment.
Academic? What like Jordan Peterson?
Politically, we're still at the name-calling level. Cogent argument is a few rungs up.
@@dansheffield4021lol no for me Peterson is emblematic of some very large issues with academia
I love your videos so much. Way to be a voice of calm reason in a world where so many are either holed up in their echo chambers or simply yelling past each other. 💙
You think this Marxist is a voice of calm ?
Yes Ryan, people often make the mistake of taking pride in their beliefs. When they get challenged, cognitive dissonance gets in the way of clear thinking.
Jargon is necessary for experts, but general audiences often struggle with this aspect of expertise. thus the challenge of informing the general public is one of minimizing jargon without betraying necessary nuance
I'm new to your channel and loving it. About the use of standard terminology: I get so tired of debates when one or both sides argue "it depends on what you mean by 'bla, bla, bla'". And they get stuck on debating about the terms and not the subject itself. It would be good practice to start every debate by defining key terms that are mutually acceptable by both sides. Thanks for your content!
I only started watching your channel recently, but so far I have really been impressed by your clarity of thought. Now I am beginning to understand why your thinking seems so clear, it's because your ability to reason and communicate that reasoning is so well developed. However, I cannot watch too many of your videos at once, because watching your videos challenges me to think so hard, I could become too overwhelmed with thought. This channel should be required study in high schools. Please keep up the good work.
Yes! Your third point on terminology is one that I have seen a lot recently. It seems like some people want the emotional/historical/cultural impact of a specific term, but attach it to a somewhat related idea that they are arguing for/against.
Really interesting thoughts!
It doesn’t help that in modern times many different people self-identify or outright name their groups with complex stated beliefs even if they don’t actually follow them - and so terms can meander between referring to the stated belief and referring to the actual/apparent beliefs of the people who name themselves after them or the movements with the same name that night or might not espouse the ideas.
An argument is an attempt to find the correct answer to a question. The problem arises when you’re asking the wrong question in the first place. When this happens, the result is that even though your argument is correct, it’s incomplete and leads to the wrong conclusion.
We know that two seemingly contradictory statement could both be true, as long as there is a logical explanation that disproves those seeming contradiction. Not to mention that not everybody is equally skillful in communicating their arguments. When you’re just focusing on your correct argument, legitimate ideas get buried by your “good” argument.
I would argue that asking the wrong questions is a symptom rather than the problem. Most people focus with an argument is winning it rather than truth seeking through it. As such they're often using "wrong" questions and other tricks which will let them be more convincing.
This is the best talk I’ve ever heard on youtube. Thank you!!
I love the depth of your research, and its easily digestible succinct presentation. This applies to your other videos, also.
Thank you for these videos, high quality, watchable, and enjoyable while teaching solid information.
This video should be obligatory for like...everyone. Thank you for some well spent 20 minutes! :)
Thank you I needed this to improve my arguments.
You're doing great, Ryan! Not dry at all! Thanks for your channel.
Your honest and simple evaluations of the subjects you speak ok are so refreshing. The idea of objective argument is so lost on the world now though, with everything being lived experience and feeling based, I wonder if we can even hold arguments with each other anymore
I completely agree with point 4. The other day, was discussing a point of religious doctrine with a friend. The conversation seemed to be going in circles, so I asked them to give me a one sentence version of the point they wanted to discuss. After hearing this friend ramble for a paragraph or two, I decided that I couldn't agree because there wasn't enough clarity to the argument.
Every argument should have a clear and concise thesis. That doesn't mean you need to lead with it or even say it outright, but it should be clear and simple deep down.
A very very nice summary and no, it is not boring at all
This guy is direct like a hammer ….. a new talent for sure …
Ryan, believe me when I say that in your arguments, the plainness NEVER becomes counterproductive. Please don't change your style! You are already achieving the perfect balance of valuable information presented artfully. In this age of trolls, bots, conspiracies and "alternative facts," your clear, calm and concise videos are oases of rationality, where the curious can safely drink the cool waters of knowledge without fear of an angle, a pitch, or a knife in the back.
Glad I found your channel Ryan, you offer views that are of value...the Chinese had a proverb that touches on this...
"he who frames the question, frames the answer"
How questions or thoughts are framed shape the path from which the discussion flows.
Additionally, there are logic based arguments vs emotionally based ones. That is, one is quantifiable in nature that seeks causation vs the subjective which is typically correlation.
Kudos and appreciation for the clarity added by you explaining nuances one has to be looking at the screen to make obvious, as I frequently do listen to videos without much essential image content while doing other tasks like washing dishes - and it saves me having to run back to the office to see what is being illustrated, if I even realize I've missed something.
I recently discovered your videos by accident, and I must say, they are extremally thought provoking. Awesome job
These videos are super great. I appreciate the detail, and the objectivity and clarity in how you get to your conclusions. Thanks for taking the time to share this with me, and you know, the world. 😉
I find this video useful and also I can advise to watch How to Win a Debate Without Even Trying | Socratic Questioning by “ Unsolicited advice “. Especially it starts with the asking the definition of each opponent, and good example is America is a democratic state. What is democratic for you and for your opponent. There 6 key points of Socrates questioning and I will also add additional details: Learn to listen not hear. Learn to detach yourself emotionally. Don’t change the subject and also don’t let your opponent change it. Control your breath , you're tone and don’t take it personally. Thank you Ryan for your wonderful work.
I always do my best to use simple, concise language, but some concepts or ideas are very complex with no common frame of reference, so they require their own explanation within any argument. It makes for a long and complex argument, which can be difficult due to the average person's attention span these days.
Always good work, Ryan!
You had me at the lack of discourse is a problem!
I learned quite a lot from this video. Thank you so much!
Love your plea for compassionate and empathy. ❤️
YT is doing something to your channel ..i am NOT getting any notifications for your channel after( What Makes An Argument 'Good') video ..u clearly r doing something right
Regarding the fourth point,Reagan was excellent in that.the way he used humour with simple language helped him immensely.well the substance of his speeches can be questioned but it was effective.
Problem is, no matter how good your argument, you most often can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Absolutely true. You can only hope to plant seeds of truth which will some day offer enlightenment. They may never pick up what you’re putting down.
Tl:dr you cant reason someone out of a religious position.
No-one is convinced by an argument that isn't made. I keep seeing people stating the banal truth that 'some people can't be convinced,' but stating this just isn't helpful.
Religious belief is a prime example of something that is very difficult to argue someone out of, but we do have innumerable examples of people being argued out of it.
The personal accounts of these changes of faith seem to suggest that it is a slow process - that there is no single argument that sways, but that they accumulate in the person's mind, presenting a sense of unease that grows with time, until it all crystallizes and the person changes their mind. Thus 'apparent lack of success' is not equivalent to failing.
Therefore, whilst there indubitably exists some number of persons whose minds truly cannot be changed, this fact is ultimately beside the point, because you are unlikely to be able to accurately determine who they are due to the delayed effects that arguments can have. In this, you truly can lose every fight, but still win the war.
==
Consider for a moment what it takes to convince you of something. You likely have some standard that an argument must abide by to be considered credible or convincing.
Each person has a different such standard. So in a sense, the 'game of argument' is one we 'play blindly, not knowing the rules our opponent requires of us for us to win.'
This suggests that adjusting your argument to suit the person whom you are trying to convince will increase your chances of success.
The adage 'it isn't what you say, but how you say it' comes to mind.
==
To summarize in list form;
Alternative explanations to 'Some people can't be convinced';
1. You failed to identify the effect your argument had. (you swayed them, but people rarely change their mind on the spot so expecting success in the moment is misplaced)
2. You failed, not because of them, but because of you. (convincing people is a skill, and you could lack it - another person could succeed where you failed)
2.1. You didn't want to spend more time on it. (which is fair, but declaring it impossible does a disservice to the person, yourself, and others)
@@uruson Summary is great if all parties involved are adhering to reason/logic. My point is more and more people are arguing from false premises based off poor imperial data, heavily laced with emotional perspectives.
You’re advice is rubbish because it recognize how emotional arguments tend to unravel. When you commit heresy against somebody’s god, their immediate impulse is to react emotionally.
The problem lies in peoples unwillingness to have their world views drastically altered.
If i was to give any advice, it would be; Do not argue with religious people. Inquiry about their beliefs and see how fleshed out they are. Then, if you’re lucky, they will start asking questions themselves.
@@orangestapler8729 i would challenge you to seek out the difference and ask clarifying questions. Evidently, i didn’t make myself clear enough.
We both partly agree with each other, However I’m trying to make the distinction that his advice does little when having religious arguments, and religious arguments are easier to understand when you interpret them as emotional arguments. There’s very little logic in emotional arguments.However, that not at all an attempt to downplay the value of emotional arguments, much less the value of religion.
As to why im engaging at all, im curious about ideas and theres only one way to encounter new ideas, by sharing your own ideas.
I really wish that I could hit the 'like' button a few hundred times for this one. Well done.
Example #2 #3 Affirming the Consequent through ad hoc reasoning #2 (kinda how science is done) also the second premise is conditned on the subject and predicate of premise 1. For example #3 The second premise fully affirms the Consequent. Which is a formal fallcy.
As a classically trained debater, thank you. I agree that you do lack flare, but I still find it plenty interesting and always SUPER informative!
Honey wake up, new ryan Chapman video
I really was glad to hear the last few moments when R.C. made a plea for compassion, patience, that a argument isn't invalid because of mistaken parts in it, or an erroneous conclusion meaning the entire premise is without value. I will be so delighted if I ever find myself in an environment where I do not instantly and without fail expect to find arguments on anything, anything, to be potentially exhausting, confusing, apt to be suddenly presented by recourse to raised voice, if not shouting, that I may someday have an argument or discussion and then, wondering why that wasn't almost defeating any points made by the illogical methods used because I'm used to the other individual often willing to be irrational and win, that is, force my resignation and weariness, actually to have found that things were worked through or understandings made in a calm, or even if passionate, not a drawn out match where sometimes you may not get more words you've said not interrupted than the usual abrupt cut-off, well, I'm happy to believe that I would likely think myself gone mad and in need of hospitalization! And it would still be a relief, it feels like so often. Ah, is it really ever possible to have arguments without tenseness, stress, defensiveness in expectation of your logic being turned to use against you without any method to it at all? I cannot be alone in this, and I must be wrong as often as anyone, is there any place left in the world outside presidential debates, of course () where it's a normal occurance to expect anything very different, if even in scale, from what I know to expect if I should be in need of explaining myself or my reasoning to another who I'll not be dismissive just to escape? I would be in error more than a toddler lacking speech function yet just to be wrong rationaley a decent amount of the time. I'm quivering a bit just writing about it. And it's not everyone all the time or one person every time but most people most of the time; but that's probably bias by now. I figured that since it's been more and more prevalent in my life and to a extent in public too that it's just like this to some degree or other for most. Yet another thing I will be only too happy to be shown that I've been wrong or unreasonable about. Sorry, I didn't expect to write so much thank you for the well defined exposition on deductive and inductive argument and the ways that their premises are used, and anyone who took time to read this thank to you also.
I feel like redefining terms is especially pernicious. Some people do it intentionally in order to win an argument and push for their ideology. Just look at Patrica Bidol who came up with the meme “P+P=R” and admitted she did so in order to win political arguments against moderate Americans. Then a whole bunch of people adopt that meme and our discourse is swamped in arguments over definitions. Redefining words really rubs me the wrong way.
Yea it can be tricky. Like he said words change over time. I'm only 28 but if I had to talk about politics and the word "privilege" was used to mean "advantage" and that was a key word, I'm not sure I could continue the discussion without it turning into talking about talking, which is totally unfortunate as it is unavoidable.
In short, spending the entire "debate" deliberating over semantics. Essentially the best way for many to not have to actually engage with the topic at hand because they dig their heels in before the true debate even starts. Best to define your terms and ask your opponent to do the same and debate based on those answers to avoid the semantical rabbit hole.
Like sociology professors redefining racism to get there students to call things "racist" that arent.
@@Gerwulf97 that’s exactly what I’m referring to
Could you define for me the P+P=R meme? Im not familiar with it but it sounds interesting
I wish this video had millions more views.
i luv da ending of dis vid. making good arguments is very hard for even da smartest people but we shud never fault people if we find flaws but rather suggest improvements. :)
At the University of York, aspect 1 is taught as:
An argument is good such that if your premises are true, then your conclusion cannot be false.
An important part of this is making sure that there are no non-sequiters in your argument, which can usually be solved with a bridge premise.
17:29 I find there to be extreme bitterness to this part. When I was younger, I constantly found myself annoyed by the ambiguity of language. To be able to better articulate what my intentions were, I endeavoured to enrich my vocabulary to circumvent the problem of ambiguity... Until I reached the point where people commented that "I used too much difficult language".
Absolutely crestfallen by this, I completely dropped my native language right thereafter (this coincided with the bastardization of my already highly flawed and poor language) and instead fully focused on improving my English.
This part of the video is twofold. It's not just 'obscurity' through 'impressive language'; it should also include the traps and dangers of ambiguity, which is equally obscuring of one's intentions. This, to me, is proof that language itself is an ever-present barrier for conveying one's intent.
12:30 or so: good example, especially since American is a term that not everyone uses the way you do. Some people consider those from all of North and South America to be Americans, others consider only people from North Americans to be Americans, others still refer to those from the U.S and Canada as Americans.
I liked your closing statement very much, that no one is above making mistakes in their argument and therefore making a bad argument should not invalidate them as thinkers, but what I felt was missing in contrast and needs to be stated, is that no one is beneath making a good argument, and that good arguments with valid premises can/should/do have merit in their own right. Unfortunately, with field specific premises we cannot determine their truth/validity without relying on the social merit of individuals participating in the debate.
Too bad that YT doesn't have other reactions to videos besides the thumbs up or down buttons. I would heart all of your videos Ryan. They are always well made and I always learn new things. Thank you.
Ryan, you have made some good arguments here. With regard to your third aspect, I think you would do well to consider the ideas of "stasis theory" which posits that argumentation exists in layers: facts, definitions, quality, policy and venue. We see a variation of this type of argument in the law when we are describing the elements of a crime.
Another great one! I think you could have included a discussion on strawmanning and steelmanning, but this was excellent as is.
Looking forward to this episode
this is one of those instances where i'm like "this is all pretty obvious" but then i remember how many people aren't actually able to do this.
Great points made!
I prefer this way for delivering arguments.
Good work. The problem with the notion of standard terminology is that some of us are fluent in English, but we do not live in a native English environment. Then our understanding of English is more of a literary character than of a commonly spoken character. The common usage of a term is not always the same as the dictionary definition of a term. I find that this creates many unnecessary misunderstandings.
A good example of such a term is religion. It is of Latin origin and therefore, connected to my native environment by Latin tradition of the Catholic church in Eastern Europe (Latin word religio). If used in an American environment, the majority start thinking of religion in protestant terms. This creates a lot of confusion. Especially with regard to many other terms in the English language that are of Latin and Greek origin.
I find that the Aristotelian argument of "How many a dispute could have been deflated into a single paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms!" Is much more useful, than the notion of a standard terminology. To effectively communicate means to find common terminology.
This is a great breakdown of how to assess an argument's logical quality. The fourth aspect you discussed made me wonder about rhetoric. I'd love to hear yours and other people's opinions about how the emotional and aesthetic aspects of rhetoric can interplay with logical construction to make a good or bad argument more or less persuasive. Especially online, I think people often rely on rhetorical devices to prop up poor logic. But, I also think emotional appeals and aesthetic construction are not trite or surface level aspects of persuasion. I think of some of the great films I've seen which persuaded me on a particular topic by appealing to my empathy for another human being's experience. I think some people who understand how to construct a logical argument may be more prone to neglect these other aspects of rhetoric. Do you think neglecting ethos and pathos can weaken an argument just as neglecting logos can? Or do you think logic is far more important to constructing an argument than these other aspects? Thanks again and I hope to hear what you think!
Very good point. I was also thinking about that. Maybe we can say the word rhetoric you choose as a visual/emotional influence. As we know a good film or a good news presentation can charge us emotionally absolutely about anything. We can also feel emotional support for a bad idea just because of that rhetoric or presentation style. Maybe we can think as a example of US influence in world media or cinema. Sometimes those presentation influence us to choose the side or what is the topic we need to talk about. So a rhetoric can be a very influential but logically not accurate. And a good logical argument or idea can be not satisfactory emotionally because of lack of good rhetoric or presentation . Or the rhetoric or emotionally influence of opposite idea is so strong that this idea can’t compete in winning hearts of people by only giving logical arguments. So the point is that a idea can maybe logically true but not satisfactory emotionally bcz of lack of rhetoric skills. So A good visionary leader of any ideology should focus on both sides.
I think ,while you are asking if ethos and pathos can bolster or detract from logos, they are only secondary to logos. Now while a "good" argument may be so on merits alone(logos only), it having an appeal or accepted by others is a whole different question. In politics, where you need acceptance of your logos, pathos and ethos will be crucial. In academia, they can even cloud your logos. Just my take.
Thank you for this great content ❤
Minor counter-argument to aspect #4:
What if something is actually complicated?
(Then you still shouldn't make it even more complicated, but it may be hard to make a truly plain argument.)
Also making an overly complicated argument may mean you're arguing in bad faith, but it may also mean that you're just bad at expressing stuff plainly (this can actually be pretty hard, especially if something "obvious" isn't so obvious to others)
it would be so awesome and useful to hear a variety of good real life examples of good arguments.
2:28 Hm, seems both arguments try to get an ought from an is. Hume might have issues with that
Love your content. Get this man more subs!
12:38 I think this is the scariest thing about modern debate. One of the most devious tactics being deployed is to literally change the definition of what words mean in order to "win arguments". To me that's evidence of a "bad argument" in and of itself, but if you happen to be on the side of the people in charge of changing the definitions, then congratulations your "good argument" has now been made "bad" by proxy. Whoever controls language, controls everything.
Excellent rational argument. I like how you didn't leave it at the first aspect (which is pure logic), but also tackle the ways we can fool ourselves (and audiences). There's one shortcoming though.
It is good at making a reasoned argument. But not as good for convincing others - which is what we use arguments for. That's where rhetoric comes in (as you do note at point 4). If you make a perfectly logical argument, but nobody's convinced by it, what did you accomplish?
Unfortunately, rhetoric can also be convincing while the argument is bad. Therefore an ethical arguer must be careful. He should use rhetoric to strengthen his persuasion. But the persuasion shouldn't be doing the legwork: else you'll fall to dishonesty.
This applies to rhetoric. It also applies to advertising. Even for making yourself up for a date or a job interview. It matters. You'll likely do poorly without it. But it shouldn't carry you.
Because if you scored that date only because you hid behind a painting, how long will that last? If (s)he's foolish enough to keep falling for it, is that a marriage worth having? Does anyone enjoy getting rich by selling crap? Do you want to have a job you suck at? Is it worth ruling, if you build a country on the quicksand of lies?
It would be nice to hear his breakdown of the conservative philosophy/ ideology.
Has done a fairly good job of explaining left leaning ideologies and philosophies in a mostly unbiased way.
and they're still garbage.
2:21
What about the "is-ought" problem? Shoudn't we add a normative premise for being able to do a normative conclusion?
Thanks again Ryan, for a very good argument cum lesson. Your research and clear thinking should be much appreciated, especially because of the amazing IT revolution we are all now having to swim in.
O.0
Does cum lesson mean something I don’t know or was that a mistype?
thank you! it's well structured, clear, and concise.
You deserve more subscribers
I've only recently found your channel, and I absolutely love your work, even when I disagree. I fully understand why you used simplified examples, but it's important to acknowledge some of the complications. I'm thinking specifically about aspect 3, regarding terminology. As I'm writing this, gun laws are very much in the news, because of a recent mass shooting in Texas. There are MANY terms used in gun debates which are poorly defined and not agreed upon, so let's consider something simpler like homelessness. If I wanted to argue that homes should be provided, we'd have to first agree to what a home is. "Home" is a very common word, known to all but the very youngest children, so everyone knows what a home is, right? Does a home need a toilet? There are homes in existence today, in the US, without indoor plumbing, so maybe not. Maybe a home is just a shelter. When hurricane Katrina refugees went to the astrodome, were they sheltered? Were they homed? Okay, so maybe home is a tricky word, let's talk about abortion instead. What's a baby? Everyone knows what a baby is, right? Defining terms is an integral part of making any consequential argument. And if either I or the person across the table wishes to redefine those terms, not only is it debatable and this acceptable, it's expected. I cannot think of a commonly debated topic, in which definitions are not also debated. Thanks again for your efforts; I subscribed after two videos. 👍
Of course swans are destroying our desert. If a swan flaps its wings in WI it rains in the Gobi dessert. Chaos theory man. 😆
On a more serious note I just found this channel yesterday and love it. I see you haven't uploaded anything in awhile and hope that means you haven't abandoned it. In the world we live in were people seem to be abandoning reason and objectivity we need it more than ever.
14:16 Sadly online dictionaries may not be trustworthy in this regard, as they might follow political trends. We've seen this long since with Wikipedia, which has a strong political slant to the left in some countries. "The Lancet" is another institution that is no longer trustworthy since it started using terms like "birthing people", clearly indicating that they put ideology over science. So for dictionaries it is advisable to have a paper version that can't be easily manipulated at home for reference.
I agree that common language and an ernest effort to communicate clearly is an important part of a good argument.
Sadly for many important subjects we don't even have a good argument in a public forum. When people are "cancelled" at universities because some people claim to be "harmed" by someone presenting a controversial stand point, when proper use of language is being hampered by claiming all kinds of utterances to be "microaggressions" and words to be "violence", and when our society is increasingly polarized, so there is no common ground to build on and no common forum to comminucate in, then it becomes increasingly difficult to have a proper argument.
Instead of arguments we see more and more moral posturing.
Greta Thunbergs "How dare you!" speech is a fine example of that.
10:01 The amount of times I take personal insults when they could have just formed a strong argument... ugh
You are good. You covered my topic request before I even made it.
The clarity aspect is very important. If we want to be understood and understand each other we should make an effort to let our language reflect that.
If we don't do that we unnecessarily risk misunderstandings.
For example scientists tend to use highly specific terminology when writing papers. This is to convey a lot of information about specific subjects to an audience, that is familiar with these terms. For the general public however we need science communicators to break these down into simpler terms to be understood, which necessarily drops some meaning. That situation could be improved, but in general seems to be acceptable as we get more science communicators.
Staying in the scientific context, I see a lot of unnecessarily complex speech however. This in my view can be traced back to the desires to belong to a certain group, to be perceived as being intelligent and to be taken seriously.
I believe, that we all can improve society by judging statements not by their wording, but rather by what meaning they try to bring across, by trying to phrase our statements as simple as possible, instead of praising and trying to be praised for sentences, that need thorough reading to be understood.
It is not easy to do. I don't even think I managed to do a good job with this comment.
An effort we should make nonetheless.
Verifiable TRUTH and FACTS is what make an argument good, and the lack thereof consequently makes an argument BAD -
Gem of a channel
While I agree with you that good arguments are stated plainly, I can also see counter arguments to it. A lot of the people who argue in this manner (mainly in academia, but that's where this aspect is most relevant) try to focus on precision of language and as such end up using complex sentences and field specific terms to try and get their point across. A good argument needs to have a balance between that precision and simplyfing it enough for the sake of clarity, which can be hard to achieve.
Of course, in academia it morphed far past that into more of a cultural norm where arguments needs a level of complexity in order to gain legitimacy, even when it's not necessary. And in other fields there are bad faith actors who use complexity in order to make their arguments seem intellegent regardless of their actual content, so there's definitely things to be aware of.
to miss-quote Einstein, Feynman or whoever actually or not so said it: "as simple as possible, but no simpler." That's the norm I try to adhere to.
I think for the reasoning section, it would make much more sense to approach it from the more rigorous side - some formal logic. An introduction to aristotelean logic (probably better for this than discrete math or modern symbolic logic) would help. In that framing, terms like 'valid argument' have a useful technical meaning (structure is ok regardless of the truth value of the premises), and it can help to reveal that there is a 'skeleton' that all arguments sit on, and you can know things about an argument based on that structure (e.g. how to simplify it).
Really enjoyed this one, would love to see you expand with a video on Rhetoric
Great video. Sending this to a few friends.
This should be shown in every middle and secondary school.
I REALLY like this channel
Great talk. I wonder 2 things though:
1. In general: Can most people draw the line from your very abstract and unrealistic examples (swans, etc) to real arguments that employ the same mistakes (i.e. probably 89.5% of their facebook timeline?) I am pretty sure I know why you chose these abstract examples, but I wonder if it would be clearer if you used real examples of common current arguments? (I know, maybe that won't work, because depending on what "side" (political, medical, sociological, etc.) the examples come from it may make a big portion of listeners tune out (if they feel "their side" is being attacked)
2. Specifically (11:31) : I think the "redefining terms" portion needs a big caveat. Sometimes it really IS necessary to redefine terms. Especially in very ingrained arguments that simply never move forward, part of the problem may be that the very terms being used, do not allow for a new way of seeing things. You say "progress is made by replacing old arguments with better ones. So the terms need to be constant" But I would add that in as many cases "progress is made by challenging the very terms on which old assumptions are based".
So to me, what would define a good redefinition of terms would be that it is made EXPLICITLY and PRIOR to constructing an argument based on the new terms. A BAD argument would simply redefine the terms, while PRETENDING to argue based on the old terms--a slight of hand that seems common in many political discussions.
So, if Pedro started by saying "ok, let's look at the word "cheating". Given that I was honest about my intentions with the other woman and you, and did not pretend to promise you or her anything other than what I did (and felt), how is this "cheating"? In my opinion that would not be a bad argument...of course he'd still end up on the couch (if lucky) or with a divorce (more likely) but he could feel good about having made a decent argument! ;-)
Some actual arguments in society:
Modern Monetary Theory is, in my estimation, making good arguments, even though it is completely redefining terms such as "national debt" and "budget deficit"--because it is completely open about setting out to redefine these terms and explains why it thinks this is necessary (I'm just saying it is arguing correctly, not saying anything about if the theory is correct)
The argument about "racism", when presumed to mean "systemic racism" seems to me, to sometimes be a "bad argument" when the traditional understanding of "racist" is simply replaced by a new understanding of the word, WITHOUT explicitly explaining that this is what the arguer is doing (as in saying "you are racist" when actually meaning: "you have benefited from historical societal systems that gave you advantages because of your race")
Oh, and of course, Einstein (since you showed him in the video), completely redefined terms such as "time", "space", "gravity", etc.
Anyway: By using these real world examples I am testing out my theory posited in point 1. XD
15:00 Alright, so it sounds like you may actively disagree with my caveat to the redefining of words (based on the Bartrand Russell quote). I would say, that there are probably a lot of people (I'd assume linguists in particular, as well as anyone who believes that (a large part of) our reality is actually primarily constructed by language) that would disagree with Russell on this and say that (maybe not always, but certainly often) our words and terms change FIRST, and our view of reality changes as as an effect of the language--at least that seems to me to be a valid position that can be argued for (and if we need a big name, worthy of providing a counterpoint to an intellectual giant like Russell, I may suggest Wittgenstein?...but then I probably misunderstand him anyway and therefore: "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.")
In the age of subjective truth this is nice to hear.
15:31
This is actually a super important point
Unless you are a French Philosopher!
I instantly think of Michael Eric Dyson when you got to ‘impressive’ obscurity.
Thank you for your videos.
I debated for years in high school and another point that often was brought up was "Uniqueness" -- for a listed premise to "count" it has to be at least relatively unique to the conclusion at hand. Let me give an example:
Premise 1: Drinking water consumes energy
Premise 2: Consuming energy creates wasteful byproducts
Conclusion: We should stop drinking water in order to conserve energy
This seemingly makes sense on paper aside. How do you argue against this? One way is to say "The advantages that come with drinking water (life) outweigh the disadvantages of energy waste." But that is actually considered a "weaker" argument in debates (weighing pro's against con's is inherently subjective; according to WHO is life more important than energy waste? A _HUMAN_? they _would_ be biased!)
The actual stronger argument to make is that _everything_ consumes energy. In fact, even _not drinking water_ costs energy. As a result, the argument that "consuming energy creates wasteful byproducts" is not a _unique argument_. It would apply to any position somebody could possibly take.
This makes that argument _inherently abusive_. It basically says that, if such an argument were to be permitted, there exist no discussions to be had in the world. Any discussion somebody could possibly have would get shut down with "that consumes energy, and consuming energy creates wasteful byproducts."
Saying that such an argument only exists to effectively stifle thought and discussion is a stronger argument against it than weighing out the pros & cons.
This comes up all the time in the real world. People will say that form of energy generates waste, but so do . It makes more sense to compare the types & quantities of the waste than it does to dismiss the technology out-of-hand just due to creating waste. People will say that plan isn't a good idea because it will cost the government money; but ALL plans will cost the government money. A more reasonable approach would be to demonstrate how it's excessively wasteful or ineffective given the projected costs, not to just dismiss it out of hand as "costing money." And so on
Second or third time watching this. Very good summary. Thank you.
Ryan, the Post Mods are gonna send a hit man after ya.
I definitely think aspect 3 is your best one. Aspect 1 is obvious and reductively stated here, I've spent wayy to much time on this aspect of argumentation and still have alot to learn. Aspect 2 is, well, not really adequate to the problem. Literally everything is connected to everything else via the strucuture of belief if you are permitted to go both up and down the levels of premises and conclusions, so this statement seems unsatisfactory as it leads to an infinite regress if implemented, we need some kind of tool(s) to deal with the issue of scope. And aspect 4 is so subjective as to be useless except as a cheap criticism. As long as you don't violate aspects 1 and 3, there won't be an issue with 4 since people will self-select down to the audence subset that understands the level your speaking at.
The great thing about aspect 3 is that it is both Extremely important and woefully under-emphasized in common discourse.
Hi Ryan Chapman! Thank you SOOO very for your brilliant and specific videos. I am CLEARLY getting smarter as I make my way through them. I came to your channel tonight to see if you had anything on what is a Constitutional Crisis? And what happens when we have one? Like, does it end up being decided by the Supreme Court. I'm currently focused on the debt limit work around with the 14th. But also on my mind is what if its about the corruption within the Supreme Court.
If you have a video that talks about this, I can't find it, maybe you could give me a link? If not... do you take requests?🤔
A confusing issue with the second premise "Swans are a likely culprit" is that the premise is is itself an inference (the conclusion of argument -- inference to the best explanation). This makes the overall argument more complex. A more clear demonstration of the point would have premises that are simple statements of fact, which may be true or false, but are not stated as inferences.
Great topic and video lesson! I 'd like to see a video on logical fallacies if you could swing it. Also, thank you for promoting civil discourse.
a good arguement made too simple isnt boring, its considered beautiful because it becomes self evident to all
On the meaning of terms I think an important consideration is that standard 'definitions' - or perhaps understandings - of these terms are often vague and imprecise. Thus in addition to not redefining terms, I think it's also often important to explicitly define key terms.
To take the US democracy argument as an example. One person might say, "A democracy is a country which has regular free and fair elections and wherein power is transferred peacefully in accordance with the outcome of those elections." And on that basis - despite some recent shenanigans - they could pretty convincingly argue that the US is a democracy. However another person might define a democracy as, "A country in which government policy accurately reflects the will of the majority of the populace." On this measure the claim that the US is a democracy is on much shakier ground. Now, I'd contend both definitions fit pretty neatly within conventional understandings of democracy. Neither side is arguing in bad faith. Yet without explicitly establishing the definition of this term - at least for the purposes of this debate - both arguments are going to fly right past each other.
Yep, Example #1 Denying the Consequent (predicate)
As someone who is most intrested in science I think I would add an extra * to your 4th point. The world often isn't as plain as we would like to be therefor when discribing it we need to state arguments as simple as they can possibly be while still being correct. In other words the level of clarity isn't beneficial to the strength of the agrument if a less clear (i. e. more complicated) agrument better discribes reality.