10.4 Denial Methods of Denial

Logic says a lot about evidence, refutation is only in passing. The reason is clear: refutation is like a mirror image of the proof.

Methods of refutation

The refutation is a reasoning directed against the advanced position and having as its purpose the establishment of its fallacy or unprovenness.

The most common method of refutation is to deduce from a refuted statement the consequences that contradict the truth. It is well known that even if a single logical consequence of a certain position is wrong, this position itself will be erroneous.

Already in the first lessons of physics at school, the experience invented by the Italian physicist E. Torricelli is shown. A glass tube sealed at one end is filled with mercury and tipped into a cup with mercury. Mercury does not spill out of the tube, it only sinks a little, and a vacuum, a “Torricellian emptiness,” is formed above it. Mercury in the tube at a certain level maintains the pressure of the atmosphere. “The experiments prove beyond doubt,” Torricelli declared, “that air has weight ...”

If anyone claims that air is weightless, you can refer to this experience. If air had no weight, it would not press on mercury in the cup and the level of mercury in the tube would be equal to the level in the cup. But this does not happen, it means that it is not true that air has no weight.

Another method of establishing the insolvency of a position put forward by someone is proof of the negation of this provision. The statement and its denial cannot be true at the same time. As soon as it is possible to show that the negation of the position in question is true, the question of the truth of this position itself will automatically disappear. It is enough, say, to show one black swan to refute the belief that swans are only white.

The erroneous opinion that there are no convictions is opposed to its denial: there is at least one conviction that there are no convictions. The peculiarity of this case is that the negation follows from the initial position itself and does not require special justification.

These two techniques are applicable to refute any statement, regardless of whether it is supported by any arguments or not. By deducing from the statement an incorrect corollary or showing the validity of the negation of the statement, we thereby prove the falsity of the statement itself. And whatever arguments are in defense of the latter, they will not constitute his evidence. Prove, as you know, you can only true statement.

If a clause is put forward with any justification, the refutation operation may be directed against the justification. In this case, it is necessary to show that the arguments cited are erroneous: deduce from them the consequences that will prove to be inconsistent as a result, or prove statements that contradict the arguments.

It should be borne in mind that the refutation of the arguments presented in support of any provision does not yet mean that this provision is incorrect. An assertion, which is essentially correct, can be defended by erroneous or weak arguments. By revealing this, we are demonstrating precisely the unreliability of the proposed justification, and not the falsity of the statement. An inexperienced debater, as a rule, gives up his position, finding that the arguments he cites are not convincing. It must, however, be remembered that a fundamentally correct idea is sometimes reinforced by not very reliable, or even simply erroneous considerations. When it turns out, you should look for other, more compelling arguments, and not rush to abandon the idea itself.

It is not enough to criticize the arguments of the opponent in the dispute. This will show only that his position is ill-founded and shaky. To reveal its fallacy, it is necessary to convincingly substantiate the opposite position. Facts are of particular importance in refutation. Reference to the true and indisputable facts, contradicting the false or doubtful statements of the opponent, is the most reliable and successful method of refutation. A real phenomenon or event that does not agree with the consequences of any universal position disproves not only these consequences, but also the situation itself. Facts are notoriously stubborn things. When refutation of erroneous, divorced from reality, speculative constructions, "stubbornness of facts" is manifested most clearly.

The refutation can be directed to the very connection of the arguments and the position to be proved. In this case, it is necessary to show that the thesis does not follow from the arguments given in its justification. If there is no logical connection between the arguments and the thesis, then there is no proof of the thesis with the help of the specified arguments. It does not follow, of course, that the arguments are wrong, or that the thesis is false.