Lecture
Denial - the compositional part of the utterance, which contains the argument of the rhetor's position through the substantiation of the falsity or unacceptability of opinions or opinions that are incompatible with it.
Depending on the goals and the technique of construction, there are three types of refutation - dialectic , eristic and sophistic argumentation.
The goal of dialectical argumentation is to establish the truth or make the right decision, so criticism in dialectical argumentation is based on a joint search for truth. Dialectical criticism is called a discussion (in Latin, consideration, research) and is applied essentially to actual or potential like-minded people. The purpose of the discussion is agreement, the search for truth or the right decision, therefore critical argumentation in the discussion is built according to logical rules and excludes arguments related to the person, worldview or interests of the opponent.
The goal of eristic argumentation is the approval of the adopted position and the rejection of the opponent’s position, therefore the criticism in eristic argumentation is based on the principle of a fair dispute. Eristic refutation is called controversy (translated from Greek - militant). Eristic controversy means victory in a dispute with an opponent who is viewed as a real or potential opponent. A conscientious eristic argument does not exclude the compromise of the criticized position or the opponent himself, because it is meant for those who make a judgment about the subject of the dispute, and its purpose is to encourage them to reject the opponent. Therefore, besides the dialectical arguments proper, eristic argumentation includes arguments to the person, to the authority, to the audience, and the polemicists select arguments to defend their positions that are convincing, first of all, not for the opponent, but for the audience.
The purpose of the sophistic argument is the suppression of the opponent and the misleading of the audience about his actual views, goals and intentions. Therefore, sophistic controversy deliberately uses methods of misrepresentation, including outright lies and slander. Usually it is the sophistic argumentation that is covered up with the requirements of “political correctness”, “non-violence”, “tolerance”, presenting any criticism in its address as aggression. The refutation of sophistic argumentation is always a demonstration of deception and the exposure of a deceiver, therefore it inevitably has a polemical character.
Consider the main types of refutation - dialectical and eristic.
Dialectical (debatable) refutation is connected with the solution of a number of technical problems, which allows to ensure objectivity, validity and accuracy of criticism.
First, as a rule, it is necessary to criticize a concept, that is, a set of views developed in a large work or a number of writings and often substantiated by a special complex argument of a scientific or philosophical nature. Therefore, the critic must solve a rather complicated task - precisely, briefly and objectively formulate the concept being criticized .
Secondly, the concept itself, which is subject to criticism, usually contains true or correct positions, which are mixed with incorrect ones. Therefore, critics need to separate the correct position from the wrong and carefully identify the subject of criticism.
Thirdly, any criticized concept is usually quite seriously and reasonably reasoned; in the composition of the provisions and arguments to be criticized, there are principled and non-fundamental, strong and weaker. Therefore, the task of the critic is to find the weak link in the argumentation of the principal provisions and not to replace the refutation of the principal provisions by the analysis of secondary and particular details of the concept being criticized, that is, to criticize not the inherent, but the inherent features of the concept .
Eristic refutation, as we have already found out, is otherwise called controversy or argument.
GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT DISPUTE
ON EVIDENCE
Before we talk about the dispute and its features, it is necessary at least in the most general terms to get acquainted with the evidence. After all, the dispute consists of evidence. One proves that such a thought is true, the other - that it is wrong.
That thought, to substantiate the truth or falsity of which evidence is built, is called thesis of the proof . All proof must rotate around her. She is the ultimate goal of our efforts. Thesis in evidence - like a king in a chess game. A good chess player should always keep in mind the king, no matter what move he intended. In the same way, a person who is skilled in evidence: what does he talk about in his proof, always ultimately means one main goal - the thesis, his justification or refutation, etc.
That is why the first requirement from those who take up serious evidence or a dispute is to clarify a controversial thought, to clarify a thesis , that is, to penetrate into it and to understand it so that it becomes absolutely clear and distinct in meaning to us. This saves a lot of time and protects against many errors.
In order to clarify a thesis, it is sufficient to usually clarify three questions regarding this thesis.
First, whether all the words and expressions of the thesis are completely and clearly understood by us. It goes without saying that if we need to refute or justify, for example, the thesis: “missionary activity at a given time is very necessary,” we must quite clearly and distinctly understand what “missionary activity” is. Without this, we will not get real proof, but something unintelligible and absolutely unconvincing. Meanwhile, at this very point - in understanding the meaning of the words of the thesis - very often evidence in general, and especially controversy.
If the meaning of a word in a thesis is not completely clear and distinct, then it is necessary to “define” this “word” or concept. For example, the definition of "missionary activity." The most common definition is “the activities of religious associations and their representatives, aimed at spreading dogma in order to involve citizens in religious practice through the organization of public events”. If we are satisfied for our purposes with this definition, we can go further. If anything seems unclear to us with such a definition, we must immediately try to clarify this ambiguity. In a word, one should try to clarify each notion of the thesis as far as possible until complete clarity and clarity.
How do you need to figure out the concept? To do this, in practice there are two means: either to define the concept on your own (which, by the way, is very difficult), or to use already prepared alien definitions. The second method is usually preferable if the matter does not concern concepts from our specialty, excellently, “like five fingers familiar to us”. It is usually difficult to define a concept well, sometimes, especially in a dispute, it is very difficult, requiring great knowledge, skill, labor, and time-consuming. It is better to use the definitions of those people who could spend all this on them, the definition of which passed through the fire of criticism.
In general, more can be recommended for this purpose definitions from some serious and authoritative scientific book. If there are no such ones on hand, the definition from a good encyclopedic dictionary and other similar sources is suitable. It so happens that the same concept is differently defined by different books and different authorities. Then, of course, we choose the most correct definition, in our opinion. But in this case, it must be remembered that there are several definitions of this concept, and bear this in mind, especially in disputes, in order to avoid misunderstandings. It is good if we remember them all and know their shortcomings; but in any case, we must not forget that there are several definitions of this concept. The definitions of those concepts with which we have to meet particularly often in evidence and disputes, we must memorize everything as precisely and quite consciously as possible.
Secondly, in the thesis, something is always affirmed or denied about an object or about many objects of the same class. For clarity and clarity of thinking, one should know whether only one subject is about or all objects of a given class, or not all, but some (most, many, almost all, several, etc.). Meanwhile, in many judgments that are expressed in evidence and words, this is precisely not visible. For example, a person says "people are evil." After all, his thought is not clear. All people without exception or the majority? Not knowing this, it is impossible to refute such a thesis, because the methods of refutation are different here.
Clarification of this item is called clarification of judgment (and therefore the thesis) in terms of "quantity." Where the “quantity” of the thesis is unclear, as, for example, in the judgment “people are evil”, the thesis is called indefinite in quantity.
Thirdly, it is necessary to find out by what judgment we consider the thesis: undoubtedly true, reliable and undoubtedly false, or just probable to a greater or lesser extent, very probable, simply probable, etc.? Depending on all this, it is necessary to present various methods of proof.
Meanwhile, to clarify these differences (differences in the degrees of modality , as their logic calls them) in the thesis, they care least of all. For a little processed average mind, whatever thought you take, it is either reliable, or undoubtedly false, there is no middle ground; or rather, he does not think about such "subtleties". So if you meet a person who consciously tries to find out if the thought is reliable or only likely, and gives this difference great importance, then this is usually a sign of a well-processed mind. Unfortunately, such a mind is infrequent. Most often do not understand the modalities of the thesis. A thought came to a person, say: “God does not exist” - and he will not ask himself: undoubtedly this is either only likely, or even - only possible - and will be directly proved as unquestionable. Or I liked the idea that there are inhabitants on the planet Mars, and he is already arguing for her as being authentic. A scientist, an astronomer, a person with a well-processed mind will calculate how much, to what extent it is likely. For an uncultured mind, this is already credible.
So, here are three main points that are usually sufficient and always necessary to find out when clarifying a thesis: a) all of the concepts that are not clear to us are included in it; b) his “quantity” and c) his “modality” .
It may seem that such a clarification takes too much time, and this waste is superfluous. But such a view is deeply flawed. First, on average, there is little time for clarification. If there are difficult cases, then there are extremely light ones that require only a few seconds. And we must remember that the duration of the clarification is greatly reduced by the skill in it. Secondly - and this is the most important thing - the time spent on clarification always pays off many times over. It not only introduces clarity, clarity and expediency unattainable without it into evidence, but it usually greatly reduces the dispute, making it impossible for various useless proofs not of what to be proved, unnecessary refutations and a lot of mistakes and sophistries associated with incorrect understanding of the thesis. It sometimes happens that it is only necessary to clarify the thesis, as it becomes obvious that there is nothing to argue about: essentially, people agree with each other. While the thesis was unclear to them, they did not notice.
In proof of the truth or falsity of the thesis, we present thoughts, the so-called arguments or grounds of evidence . It should be such thoughts that a) we consider to be true not only ourselves, but also that person or the people to whom we prove them, and from which b) it follows that the thesis is true or false. Of course, if we make such an argument that our interlocutor does not recognize as true, then it will be a mistake. It will be necessary either to prove the truth of this argument itself, and then rely on it when proving a thesis, or to look for another, more successful argument. For example, if I want to prove to someone that “it is necessary to work,” and in the form of an argument I add “because God commands this,” then such an argument will be suitable only for the believer. If a person does not believe in God, and I will give him this argument, of course, I will not prove anything to him. Then, as has been said, it is necessary that the truth of the thesis flow from the argument; it is necessary that the thesis and the grounds (arguments) be so connected that whoever acknowledges the true argument must be recognized as true and thesis. If this link is not immediately visible, you must be able to show what it is.
Without this, too, proof is not proof. For example, if someone wants to prove that “bread will soon become more expensive” and he will argue that “there was an earthquake in Mexico yesterday,” such proof will not convince me. Yes, there was an earthquake in Mexico yesterday. The argument is true. But he "proves nothing." What is the connection between this argument and the thesis that “bread will soon become more expensive”? Maybe there is a connection, but I don’t see it. Show it, and then there will be real proof. And while I do not see this connection, no surest argument will convince me.
Thus, this is what is needed for the proof, except for the thesis: a) the grounds, the arguments, and b) the connection between them and the thesis.
Each important argument in the proof must be considered separately and also clarified - just find out how we clarified the thesis. After all, if we do not fully understand the argument, then how can we quite confidently say that it is true or that it is false? This work of clarification is absolutely necessary here. You just need to learn how to do it soon. And who has tried to do it with evidence, he will fully appreciate how many mistakes and wastes of time she guards. Do not trust the "first look" and think that it is not required to find out. This is our most common human error, that many thoughts seem to us quite clear; but a chance will come, the adversary will be touched by such a thought, and it turns out that this thought is not at all clear to us, on the contrary, very vague and sometimes even misunderstood by us. Then we can be in a dispute in a very ridiculous position. The illusion of clarity of thought is the greatest danger to the human mind . Typical examples of it are found in the conversations of Socrates, transmitted in the dialogues of Xenophon and Plato. Some young man or husband approaches him, to whom "everything is clear" in one or another thought. Socrates begins to pose questions. In the end, it turns out that the interlocutor's illusion of clarity of thought covers the darkness and impassable fogs, in which the worst mistakes nest and lie.
Errors in the evidence are mainly of three types : a) or in the thesis, b) or in the arguments, in the grounds, or c) in the connection between the arguments and the thesis, in “reasoning”.
Mistakes in the thesis consist in the fact that we undertook to prove one thesis, and in fact proved or are proving another. Sometimes it is a thesis similar to a real thesis or somehow related to it, sometimes without any visible connection. This error is called a departure from the thesis . Examples of it are found at every step in the dispute. For example, a person wants to prove that Orthodoxy is a useless faith, and at the same time he proves that Orthodox priests are often bad. Or he wants to prove that an unwise person is stupid, but he proves that a stupid person is not reasonable. And this is not the same thing. Deviations from the thesis are very different. It is possible, instead of one thought, to prove a similar thought to her, but still another thought; but you can replace it with a completely different, other thought. It happens that a person sees that he does not defend the thesis or does not prove it - and deliberately replaces it with others so that the opponent does not notice. This is called the substitution of the thesis . It also happens that a person simply forgot his thesis. He asks later: "What did we start our argument from?" This will be a loss of thesis .
Errors in arguments are most often two: a) a false argument, b) an arbitrary argument. False reason is when someone relies on a clearly false thought. For example, if someone, in support of the thesis, says that the land is held on three whales, we, of course, will not accept this argument, we will consider it as false. An arbitrary argument is one that, although not deliberately false, yet requires proper proof itself. For example, if someone cites the idea that “the end of the world will soon be” to prove the thesis, this will be an arbitrary argument. We can demand other arguments, but not accept this, or demand that this argument be proved.
Finally, errors in the “connection” between the foundations and the thesis (“in reasoning”) consist in the fact that the thesis does not follow, does not follow from the grounds or is not visible, as it follows from them. For example, let's say someone proves: "we will have crop failure this year." - Why do you think so? - "But because the sun has become a lot of spots." Naturally, most of us will ask, what is the connection here between the thesis and the basis. It is not visible how the truth of the thesis follows from this basis. Or if anyone declares: Napoleon wore a gray jacket and student Ivanov also wears a gray jacket, then student Ivanov is Napoleon. Here we frankly say that there is no connection between the foundations and the thesis; accordingly, a person reasons absolutely completely wrong.
What are errors in reasoning, logic teaches more.Without it, the details can not be entered. Whoever has a mind “capable of proving,” is easier, of course, to find an error in them than a less capable one. Common sense and the skill of thinking provide great services in this. But in general, it is often difficult to find an error if the proof is complicated. Sometimes you feel that something is wrong, but where there is a mistake, you cannot determine. This is where the knowledge of logic helps in practice.
Source: S.I. Povarnin, “Dispute: On the Theory and Practice of Dispute” (1918)
Comments
To leave a comment
Rhetoric
Terms: Rhetoric