Rarely, do I ever hear a non-one sided argument, That's why I've started to believe the only way you can get the "truth" is to listen to both sides and then make up my own mind. After all when is the last time you saw an article which wants to "prove" something ever touch on points that it can't explain? Also, when is the last time you read a article on a topic you where new to where you didn't come out convinced the author was correct? Now, read an article from an author with the complete opposite view, or a critique of the original view. What do you believe now? Usually I just end up confused and realize I don't know enough about the topic from reading just two articles and start researching further.
The other reason I believe this study method is so important is evangelism. I don't believe I can defend my position on any thing without understanding the arguments of those with opposing views. Not, just superficially studying what others I agree with have to say about the views of the other party, but actually listening to those who disagree explain their views in their own words. I found it really hurts my arguments when I find myself arguing against a simplified version of the argument of my opponent is using and it turns out to not be what they actually believe. Or sometimes my simplification of their argument may be correct, but since I'd never heard their actual side before I can't explain adequately why it is correct.
If any one in my (currently almost non-existent audience) knows of a good book on critical thinking, arguments and debate I'd be interested, especially if its an audio book.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I can't recommend any books on logic and critical thinking. It's funny that I'm taking that exact course right now (Philosophy 156) but my professor is not using any texts - he creates his own readings for us. (He says he thinks it's a rip-off to buy texts since they mostly serve to make money for campus bookstores and publishers.) But I would recommend taking this course, and especially with this professor.
Also, your point about arguing a simplified version of a point is called the "straw man" argument. You set up a weak version of an argument and then easily shoot it down - thus "proving" your point. (i.e. "Evolutionists believe we evolved from monkeys, but monkeys are still around, so it's obvious we didn't evolve from them - so evolution must be wrong.")
Not that I believe in evolution (not at all!), but we need to be smart about how we defend our viewpoints.
Post a Comment