sociology study does not lead anyone to become an expert on logic or argument, but I have a little personal interest in these issues.
During some conversations, I have come to identify one of the arguments that I dislike, it seems less logical, but against which, bound by social norms, you can not do much more than silence and change subject.
So I have very vague known as reductio ad doxa : turning every conversation into a mere matter of individual opinion impossible to criticize without one passing through the positions intolerant of others.
works more or less well. In front of a conversation where there is disagreement, the individual who uses the argument Reductio ad doxa responds as follows:
automatically equate to "bizantinizar" the talk about the issue that caused the disagreement, to the point that can no longer continue to talk and you better change the subject to something more frivolous , if at that point yet possible. The failure of the argument is that everyone who uses it to defend its hiding behind the wrong idea, for my taste, tolerance, belief or opinion that an individual deserves to be considered as valuable and true by the mere fact of being an individual belief, only by the fact be issued, not by how therefor.
There is a distinction, this time more sociological. What in the field of politics or academia might be acceptable or desirable (the dissent argued, on the assumption that it is not acceptable any idea shield against criticism) is rarely accepted in other interactions . In everyday interactions in the lifeworld by Habermas put it, the tolerance of dissent argued is much lower than in other areas of social life. In effect, hence the disagreement can be quite tiring.
Alternatively, someone could also say "most do not think like you, so resign yourself" . But I think that this form of argument has already been described as misleading by someone else.
Moral: if you are taking a coffee or a drink with someone, show disagrees happy and cautiously, measuring each step like a cat stalking its prey, unless you are sure that your partner find stimulating conversation, of occasionally, about something that goes beyond the anecdotal.
During some conversations, I have come to identify one of the arguments that I dislike, it seems less logical, but against which, bound by social norms, you can not do much more than silence and change subject.
So I have very vague known as reductio ad doxa : turning every conversation into a mere matter of individual opinion impossible to criticize without one passing through the positions intolerant of others.
works more or less well. In front of a conversation where there is disagreement, the individual who uses the argument Reductio ad doxa responds as follows:
Well, I do not believe / I believe / think so. What
automatically equate to "bizantinizar" the talk about the issue that caused the disagreement, to the point that can no longer continue to talk and you better change the subject to something more frivolous , if at that point yet possible. The failure of the argument is that everyone who uses it to defend its hiding behind the wrong idea, for my taste, tolerance, belief or opinion that an individual deserves to be considered as valuable and true by the mere fact of being an individual belief, only by the fact be issued, not by how therefor.
There is a distinction, this time more sociological. What in the field of politics or academia might be acceptable or desirable (the dissent argued, on the assumption that it is not acceptable any idea shield against criticism) is rarely accepted in other interactions . In everyday interactions in the lifeworld by Habermas put it, the tolerance of dissent argued is much lower than in other areas of social life. In effect, hence the disagreement can be quite tiring.
Alternatively, someone could also say "most do not think like you, so resign yourself" . But I think that this form of argument has already been described as misleading by someone else.
Moral: if you are taking a coffee or a drink with someone, show disagrees happy and cautiously, measuring each step like a cat stalking its prey, unless you are sure that your partner find stimulating conversation, of occasionally, about something that goes beyond the anecdotal.
0 comments:
Post a Comment