15. Tricks in the dispute (the end). Arbitrary arguments

Undoubtedly, the most common mistake, which in most cases should be called not a mistake, but a conscious trick, is “ arbitrary arguments ”. It is necessary to carefully study the articles of any newspaper, the speech of any speaker, listen to any dispute, and we will almost always find in them arbitrary, not at all obvious and not proven assertions and denials that people rely on to support their opinions. Only, perhaps, in strictly scientific books from the field of exact sciences of this kind errors are rarely encountered.

However, it should be noted that the recognition or non-recognition of the argument “arbitrary” depends largely on the degree of our demands on it . In one case, we are more demanding, in the other - less, and this is quite normal. Demanding on arguments must have a degree in practice. Otherwise, we may fall into the error of "excessive doubt" or "excessive accuracy." If we begin to investigate the authenticity of every argument and under all circumstances with absolute accuracy, then any dispute would be impossible, and we would only remain that we follow the example of some ancient skeptic philosophers who considered it necessary to apply the standard of absolute certainty everywhere and therefore doubt everything. .

There is a certain degree of exactingness to the argument that is established by the logical tact of a person. In science it is one, in law practice it is another, in ordinary life it is the third. And within these limits, it depends mainly on the dispute to be more or less important to us . If someone argues with us about some trifles, we will have one degree of exactingness to his arguments, but if there is a dispute over some much more serious things, it is completely different. A dishonest debater very often uses this loophole to escape from defeat in the dispute: “Not proved!”, “Arbitrary argument!”, “Prove!”, “I do not believe!” ... These statements sometimes turn into a very important means for retreat .

But just as an excessive demand for arguments is a mistake (most often a conscious trick), so too much undemandingness is also a mistake (it’s a mistake, not a trick). We need precisely logical tact and experience in order to find the proper measure of exactingness in each case.

Of all the types of arbitrary argument, it is necessary first of all to single out the “ hidden arbitrary argument ”. Let us analyze the most characteristic form of the trick using the "hidden arbitrary argument" - the sophism of an "arbitrary name" that conceals the argument .

Each name must be justified, the name is justified by the justifying premise giving the right to this name. This premise is a hidden argument and very often arbitrary. Nevertheless, people most often are especially inclined to this kind of hidden arguments not to check, but to take them on faith.

Meanwhile, the adoption of the name often changes the whole thing. After all, by accepting it, we thereby accepted that the object designated by him also has corresponding properties.

Reasoning correctly, we would first have to make sure that the subject has these properties, and then accept its name. In fact, people most often first take the name of it and, based already on the name, deduce that the object should have certain properties. It turns out as if " inverted evidence ." This lack of ordinary thinking is used by the sophist, trying to make us first take on faith the name of the object; and at the same time those properties of the object in which he wishes to convince us will “pass” imperceptibly. A vivid example is the revolutionary term "expropriation." In fact, those people who, in the times of the same Russian distemper, were engaged in expropriation, were the most natural thieves. But in the eyes of the common people, these people did not look like thieves, but something more noble, they were called expropriators, and for the most part this name was adopted, and with it those properties that are usually inherent in those who pretend property, that is, thieves.

One of the most common tricks of the dispute — an unsubstantiated assessment of the arguments of the adversary — also belongs to the kind of sophistry of an arbitrary name. Many, having heard the opponent's argument, declare categorically: “Nonsense!”, “Nonsense!”, “Wordplay”, “It's stupid!”, Etc., etc., if they later prove the correctness of their words, after all, such sharp assessments of the adversary’s arguments are at least superfluous - especially before proving their correctness. It should be noted that in the vast majority of cases such estimates are both unprovable and incorrect. “But sometimes they don’t even try to substantiate them, but express them“ just like that, ”as an argument, as an objection. This is the purest sophistry of an arbitrary name: the name replaces the argument, but is not itself proven. Even more than that, this is one of the roughest sophisms of this kind.

Arbitrary arguments include or are associated with them and more subtle assessments of arguments with the aim of getting rid of labor in answering them. For example, “this argument is too crude and primitive, and one should not reckon with it”, or “there is nothing to dwell on this naive argument,” etc., etc. It must be remembered that once we argue with someone, since it was considered possible (and maybe even necessary) to argue with him, then our duty is to refute all his arguments (or at least try to do it in good faith), no matter how they seem to us rude or naive.

Such tricks of arbitrary argument are also included here, when the disputant begins to get rid of such words from the labor of refuting the thoughts of the opponent: “in the final result of the analysis, this thought leads to a contradiction”. But the one who tries to get rid of the continuation of the dispute with the help of such words, usually does not try to show that this or that thought really leads to a contradiction. Thus, a “ denial on credit ” is obtained, which must be attributed to errors (or rather, to tricks). Or, he gets a remark: “we will not dwell on this argument, since its fallacy is obvious, but let us turn to a more substantial one”. Or: “here we will not prove the truth (or falsity) of this thought. We will prove it another time, ”etc. This last can be called“ proof on credit . ” The forms of such mistakes and tricks are quite numerous and varied.

Further, one of the most common types of arbitrary argument is incorrect references to authorities . Arguments “from authority” are very important, and often you just can't do without them. But at the same time it is necessary to remember two conditions for their correct application: a) these arguments are correctly applicable or, in the absence of arguments, in essence , which happens very often (after all, we cannot know everything, test everything and check it out for ourselves); or in support of substantive arguments . By itself, reference to authority in the vast majority of cases is only a more or less likely (and not reliable) argument; b) every authority is an authority only in the field of its specialty. If there are several such areas, the better for him, of course. But outside the specialty he is “an ordinary mortal,” and the reference to him in these cases is an error or a conscious sophism. Here are two conditions under which the reference to authority can be correct. In other cases, such a reference is a mistake or a conscious sophism.

But even if these conditions are met, the reference to authority has different degrees of probability that must be taken into account each time separately. For example, in the field of a given person’s specialty there are questions on which his true opinion can be considered reliable, and there are such questions where it does not go beyond the average degrees of probability. Take science, for example. Someone argues: "such a theory is currently abandoned by many physicists." In confirmation, he refers to the words of a certain professor, known for his precise intelligence and wide knowledge of the modern situation of physics. It is clear that such a person could not make mistakes in this matter. Just as we can not do it in the question: whether we are related to the department of missiology or not. The whole point will be whether someone has correctly conveyed the words of the professor. On the contrary, if someone refers to the words of a professor to prove that such a controversial theory in physics is erroneous, then the opinion of the professor (if correctly conveyed) can only have a greater or lesser probability value, depending on many circumstances. The professor is undoubtedly an authority, but the professor is also a person. It may not be a new theory that is mistaken, but its assessment by this authority.

Abuse of references to authorities is characteristic of most often carried away by young people and those people who are not used to, do not like and do not know how to think independently. The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer speaks harshly but wittily about such amateurs of the authorities: “People who so quickly and with such fervor cling to the authorities in order to resolve controversial issues by reference to them are, in fact, glad that they can put someone else's mind and insight into others , for lack of their own. Their number is legion. For, as Seneca said: unus quisque mavult credere, quam judicare ( everyone prefers to believe rather than reason ). Therefore, in their disputes, ordinary weapons are authorities. They beat each other. He who got into an argument with them will do wrong if he wants to defend against them with substantive arguments and arguments. Plunging into the abyss of inability to argue and think, ... they oppose you in the form of arguments of authority and shout: "Victory!" ".

These arguments: “that is indisputably proven,” “proved by science”, etc., are so often found in some disputes, and so comparatively rarely they are correct. They are either the mistake of the incompetent in logic and the illiterate immature thinking in science, or sophism, that is, a false argument. How often it is used, probably everyone knows.

The trick of the opposite nature is the complete negation of any authorities .

In fact, there are relatively few issues that we seriously, with full knowledge, with the expenditure of all the necessary labor and strength, we can figure out for ourselves. These questions usually do not go beyond the limits of everyday experience and interests and beyond the limits of our nearest specialty. Otherwise, we inevitably base ourselves on the experience and knowledge of all the rest of humanity. Without them, we sometimes can not take a single step. But if this is so, then it is natural to base on the experience and knowledge of not the first person who got in the way (maybe not at all suitable for this purpose), but on the information of the obviously best experts in the field to which the question relates, that is, to rely on authorities. Therefore, the complete denial of authorities is often either outright "boyishness", or the result of thoughtlessness, or sophism — in parallel with the sophistication of the abuse of authority.

More often, however, there is not a complete negation of authorities, but another sophism: the denial of that authority, which is correctly brought in support of its thought by the adversary . For example, suppose we come up with something from the field of physics, and confirm our statement with a reference to the recent mention of the same circumstance by a professor - a well-known, generally recognized expert in physics and a precise thinker. Both our opponent and ourselves are profane in these matters - we have brought authority quite correctly and to the place. But our opponent does not want to allow the argument that we are proving, and he begins to reason: “Allow me, but your professor is a god, is it? Can't he be wrong? More recently, he was caught in such and such a mistake. " “Yes,” we reply, “the professor is not a god, it can be wrong. It is possible that he was caught and right. But the whole question is what is wrong? There are questions in which his mistake is as incredible as the mistake for us in the question: are we talking with you now or not. ” However, in such cases, it is necessary to select other arguments to help the argument as unproven. The opponent has achieved his goal.

SOPHISMS OF FAILURE

The sophisms of inconsistency or incorrect reasoning , that is, those in which the thesis “does not follow” from arguments, are very common. In such cases, they sometimes say: “from here (that is, from the argument) nothing else follows”; or “your argument does not prove anything”, etc. First of all, we should mention “a false generalization ”. For example, a person cites several examples of the fact that such persons or such objects possess a well-known sign, and without further reasoning concludes that all such persons and objects possess this sign (such as how one Gogol's hero saw that the orthodox, which he met, eat dumplings, and from here he concluded that all Orthodox Christians eat dumplings in general, and those who do not eat them are not Orthodox).

This tendency towards false generalization is based on conscious or unconscious sifting of facts. Our memory sifts them, citing only those facts that we observed that correspond to our mood or preconceived opinion. An example of such sifting is newspapers. A newspaper prints only what it finds interesting, and those who publish a newspaper are interested only in facts of a certain kind. Therefore, they fall into the press, and the opposite do not fall, even if they were incomparably larger and they would be incomparably more important. From here it can turn out (and in practice it turns out constantly) a false, one-sided idea of ​​the state of affairs and false generalizations (for the “amendments” one should at least read opposite newspapers). When such a sifting of facts is accomplished consciously, that is, it turns into a trick, it is called a juggling of facts . Juggling facts and false generalizations is one of the most common tools for the sophist.

Sophism of “ substitution of concepts ” is also common. Behind   the identity of concepts occurring in different places of the evidence must be monitored with particular vigilance. Otherwise, there will be an error - the substitution of the concept or, as is often said, the “substitution of a term” in the proof. It is very easy to fall into it, especially due to the inaccuracy of our usual speech. The same concept is often expressed in different words. Therefore, sometimes it is not easy to figure out at once whether we have exactly one concept in different words, and not two different concepts. Even more, if it will be possible to say so, the traitorous peculiarity of speech is that the same word often means several different concepts. We already spoke about it above. Here sometimes you will not be careful, and in one place you will use the word in one sense, and in another place you will give it a different meaning. Especially if the proof is long, and the word is not entirely clear in its meaning. It is even easier to make such a mistake in a dispute when our opponent uses a word in one sense, while we in another. This happens very often. For example, if someone in a dispute mentions the words of the Apostle Paul: “Love is the totality of all perfections” (Colossians 3.14), and the other agrees with him, this does not mean that they think the same thing. In Russian, the word "love" has especially many meanings. You can love God and potatoes, a bride and an old robe, a neighbor and a “cold bath” ...

The sophist uses such a substitution of concepts very often. This is one of the most convenient means to fool people. Since most of them are not accustomed to understanding the “subtleties” of words and expressions, it is better to take measures against this dangerous sophism in advance: a) try to express the same concept with the same words and where the opponent does not do this, himself him, as if repeating his phrase in his own way; b) each word with several meanings should be replaced with either another word, more defined in meaning, or a whole exact expression. Sometimes it is possible to confine oneself to adding words to some reservations, for example, to replace the word “love” with a more precise expression: “love of God”, “towards the neighbor”, “towards a woman”, etc.

Of the other sophistries of inconsistency, it is necessary to mention the common and often rather curious sophism, which can be called the " ladies' argument ." He often happens in the course and in men, but for some reason he gets a special shine and relief in the women's mouth.

Its essence is what it is. On many issues it is possible, not one, not two, but several, many solutions, several assumptions, etc., are conceivable. Some of them are opposite to each other. According to common sense and according to the requirements of logic, all these decisions or assumptions should be taken into account. But the sophist does the opposite. Wanting, for example, to defend his opinion, he chooses the most extreme and most ridiculous opposite of other conceivable solutions to the issue and contrasts his opinion. At the same time, he invites us to make a choice: either to recognize this absurdity, or to accept his thought. The brighter the contrast between the absurdity and the opinion he defends, the better. All other possible solutions are intentionally silenced.

Here is an example from life:

A. What did you do to him so dryly? He, poor, felt very awkward among us.

B. And how can I order him to apply? Put in a corner instead of icons and pray to him?

There are thousands of ways to handle people besides these two. But B. chose to contrast the most ridiculous of conceivable ways.

Or another example - from the "serious" disputes.So "serious" that here the "ladies' argument" is mixed with the "cane". Argue men.

A. In my opinion, the current composition of the government is completely unsuitable for governing the country.

B. What, then, in your opinion, is it necessary to return Stalin to power again?

No less often, another kindred sophism occurs: an imposed consequence . Most often, it has the external form of the so-called abduction.

It is known that one of the methods of refutation of an incorrect thought is that we consider its consequences. If the consequences that follow from it are necessary are false or outright ridiculous, then the very idea from which they follow is wrong. The sophist, while distorting this technique, often tries to impose thoughts on a ridiculous consequence, which does not follow from it at all . Here is the simplest everyday example:

A. I think that the same reproach (of vehement dispute) can be returned to you. I will repeat the words of Jesus Christ: "to the doctor, be healed himself."

B. Oh my goodness! He makes himself equal with Jesus Christ! ...

Or another case (also from life):

A. Oh, how tired I am!

B. But today you didn’t have to work much. Curtains attached V. For shopping went S.

A. So you call me a parasite? So I mean you, darling?

Finally, from among other sophisms one can also mention the “ multi-question ”. On some issue, only a conditional solution is possible: in some cases it is necessary to solve it in the following way, in others it is different. The sophist demands that the opponent "simply" answer - yes or no. " If the adversary wants to make a proper “distinction,” he is accused of “not wanting to answer directly and resorting to dodging”. For example:

- Is it fair or dishonest to protect another nation (in dispute) to the detriment of one’s own? Answer without twisting, right: yes or no?

- But wait! I can't answer this question in two words, because ...

- BUT! Can't you answer directly ?! When you are pressed against the wall, you always set off on tricks.

- No! The very question of this kind that it is impossible to answer only "yes or no." This is a difficult question, and it should be ....

- We have heard these loud phrases of yours, we know your tricks ... I don’t need any intricacies ... You tell me directly: honestly or dishonestly? etc.

МЕРЫ ПРОТИВ УЛОВОК


Кто хорошо изучил уловки софистов и умеет сейчас же распознавать их, тот в значительной мере обезопасит себя от них. Как отвечать на каждую из них в том или другом случае - зависит от такта, находчивости и других подобных качеств спорящего. «Прописать особое лекарство» против каждой из них и для всех обстоятельств вряд ли возможно. Можно сказать только одно: кто принимает в споре все те предупредительные, «профилактические», если так можно выразиться, меры, тот в значительной мере охранит себя от всяких поползновений софиста. Главнейшие из них таковы:

- спорить только о том, что хорошо знаешь;
- не спорить без нужды с так называемым мошенником слова или с человеком, «хамоватым» в споре, а если всё-таки и приходится с такими спорить, то быть все время «начеку»;
- learn to “embrace” the whole argument with thought, and not follow from the argument to the argument;
- in every possible way to keep calm and complete self-control in the dispute;
- carefully and clearly clarify the thesis and all the main arguments - your own and your opponent.