Stages of Argument (2000) | Hacker News Reader

Stages of Argument (2000)

legacy.earlham.edu

42 pointsskilled16 comments

Stage 4 sounds somewhat like the structure of the Summa Theologica, wherein Aquinas addresses hundreds of individual questions following a few themes, each with the same structure (quoting from [0]):

> Each “Article” has five structural parts. First, the question is formulated in a yes or no format, as explained above, beginning with the word “Whether” (Utrum).

> Second, St. Thomas lists a number of Objections (usually three) to the answer he will give. The Objections are apparent proofs of this opposite answer, the other side to the debate. These objections begin with the formula: “It seems tha“ (Oportet).

> These Objections must be arguments, not just opinions, for one of the basic principles of any intelligent debate (woefully neglected in all modern media) is that each debater must give relevant reasons for every controvertible opinion he expresses. The Objections are to be taken seriously, as apparent truth.

> Third, St. Thomas indicated his own position with the formula “On the contrar“ (Sed contra).

> The fourth part, “I answer that” (Respondeo dicens), is the body of the Article. In it, St. Thomas proves his own position, often adding necessary background explanations and making needed distinctions along the way.

> Fifth and finally, each Objection must be addressed and answered—not merely by repeating an argument to prove the opposite conclusion, for that has already been done in the body of the Article, but by explaining where and how the Objection went wrong, i.e., by distinguishing the truth from the falsity in the Objection.

[0] https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/summa...

This analysis totally ignores the power of snappiness. Of being laconic. It's the sort of stuff that works in the walled garden of academia but completely ignores the state of reality, where the average person is so bogged down by information overload that the gist is all they ever desire. I think a pie chart or an infographic is infinitely more powerful than a "Stage 4 argument".

> This analysis totally ignores the power of snappiness. Of being laconic.

You can convince somebody with an unsound argument if you say it in a certain way, but it seems unethical to do so.

It's also may not work for somebody who has a habit of coming back to the arguments in his thoughts and finding questions - if he can't answer them well enough.

That’s because the author, Peter Suber, doesn’t go beyond Nietzsche in his work (you can read his self summary elsewhere on the website). I’d suggest you read The Work of Art in the Age of its Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin[0], if you want an exposition on the power of the visual, and of shocks of experience, in the social and political world.

[0]https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf

Has anyone coined the "Schopenhauer Fallacy" to explain when people believe replacing complex and nuanced ideas with a symbol helps resolve arguments relating to those ideas? (I.e., a logomachy)

Stage 1.) state an observable but unpopular fact. Stage 2.) endure verbal abuse. Stage 3.) endure psychological abuse. Stage 4.) endure social abuse. Stage 5.) wait five to ten years when the observable fact is confirmed but by then it’s pointless and everyone can act like it’s obvious.

"First, they ignore you. Next, they ridicule you. Then you win."

"...then you ignore them."

And now we have created a cycle

After decades of doing this I have finally come to my senses and now only engage in arguments of this form where I could add a stage 0: buy leveraged options on my unpopular but obvious observation, and a stage 6: wildly profit from betting against the stubbornness and dismissiveness of such people as I had previously tried to persuade and bring into an equally advantaged perspective with my own.

I increasingly prefer to simply sit out stages 1 through 5 altogether.

I had an errand at the DMV recently and realized that I read text in my own voice because that building was packed and everyone sounded like a Facebook comment section. It was like Idiocracy cosplay.

Stage 5 is when you realize that all political/ethical arguments are variants of the Trolley Problem and highly dependent on non-falsifiable axioms. In other words, there is no Objectively Correct answer to any political/ethical argument.

I think the biggest fallacy is the idea that (a) there exists an Objectively Correct political position, and (b) my opponents would accept that position if only they weren't stupid or corrupt.

The genius of democracy is that it acknowledges this, and that the only way to decide is for everyone to vote their preference.

The challenge of democracy, of course, is that it works best when people are roughly equal in terms of knowledge, wealth, and culture. The more homogenous a society is, the more likely it is to choose policies that benefit all. But splintered societies lead to zero-sum, winner-take-all conflicts.

Which is why you shouldn't have so big countries, smaller countries is better for democracy. All tries to consolidate power and countries are undemocratic.

Yes. But some large countries are homogenous enough to be fine. The US, for all its flaws and divisions, is arguably homogenous enough to stay together (though I guess we'll see what the next 50 years bring).

China and India (modulo their regional minorities) are homogenous enough to stay together.

Another option is to have multiple levels of government where many important decisions are local but others are made at a higher level. The EU is a great example of this (modulo Brexit).

But small countries have a hard time withstanding attacks of big undemocratic countries. Hence treaties and federations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com