How to Win an Argument - 38 Methods from Schopenhauer

[MineralMan]

A brilliant German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, wrote a book with the English title of "The Art of Controversy." It's a sarcastic look at strategies people often use in arguments. They're all one sort of logical fallacy or another, but Schopenhauer presents them very nicely. There are 38 strategies in his list, which should be read by anyone who discusses things on the Internet. You'll find them all, nicely presented, at the link below:

http://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm

Here are a couple of my favorites from the 38 Stratagems:

8. Make your opponent angry. An angry person is less capable of using judgement or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.

14. Try to bluff your opponent. If he or she has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the trick may easily succeed.

Once you've read and absorbed these, you'll find all of them in play on any discussion forum, and in the political world we all live in. It's great fun, and worth a close read. You can even print out that web page for future reference to identify the bogus arguments you encounter on a daily basis.

Which ones are your favorites?

[shenmue]

1. 1) Vodka 2) Tilt head

[think]

2. 26

A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent's arguments against him or herself.

[MineralMan]

3. Indeed.

[Vincardog]

4. If your opponent asks you to admit something from which the point in dispute will immediately follow

you must refuse to do so, declaring that it begs the question.

[MineralMan]

6. But of course. Very useful.

[BrotherIvan]

10. Or blue links

[kristopher]

5. "it is with victory that your are concerned, and not with truth"

#21 When your opponent uses an argument that is superficial, refute it by setting forth its superficial character. But it is better to meet the opponent with a counter argument that is just as superficial, and so dispose of him or her. For it is with victory that your are concerned, and not with truth.

Great insight into why the internet may be doing more harm than good. Especially the anonymous internet where professionals use tactics like this in social media to promote the corporate agenda.

From the Journal Nature, just for contrast:

Policy: Twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims

This list will help non-scientists to interrogate advisers and to grasp the limitations of evidence, say William J. Sutherland, David Spiegelhalter and Mark A. Burgman.

Calls for the closer integration of science in political decision-making have been commonplace for decades. However, there are serious problems in the application of science to policy — from energy to health and environment to education.

One suggestion to improve matters is to encourage more scientists to get involved in politics. Although laudable, it is unrealistic to expect substantially increased political involvement from scientists. Another proposal is to expand the role of chief scientific advisers1, increasing their number, availability and participation in political processes. Neither approach deals with the core problem of scientific ignorance among many who vote in parliaments.

Perhaps we could teach science to politicians? It is an attractive idea, but which busy politician has sufficient time? In practice, policy-makers almost never read scientific papers or books. The research relevant to the topic of the day — for example, mitochondrial replacement, bovine tuberculosis or nuclear-waste disposal — is interpreted for them by advisers or external advocates. And there is rarely, if ever, a beautifully designed double-blind, randomized, replicated, controlled experiment with a large sample size and unambiguous conclusion that tackles the exact policy issue.

In this context, we suggest that the immediate priority is to improve policy-makers' understanding of the imperfect nature of science. The essential skills are to be able to intelligently interrogate experts and advisers, and to understand the quality, limitations and biases of evidence. We term these interpretive scientific skills. These skills are more accessible than those required to understand the fundamental science itself, and can form part of the broad skill set of most politicians.

To this end, we suggest 20 concepts that should be part of the education of civil servants, politicians, policy advisers and journalists — and anyone else who may have to interact with science or scientists....

http://www.nature.com/news/policy-twenty-tips-for-interpreting-scientific-claims-1.14183

[MineralMan]

7. That's an excellent article.

You're right. The Internet can be a source of information or confusion. Knowing the difference is important.

[DireStrike]

9. Agreed, these tactics are almost all dishonest tricks used to trip up a weak opponent.

I would like to see an article explicitly discussing how to watch for these tricks when observing an argument, and how to recognize and defeat them when holding an argument.

If your opponent uses these tactics in place of a good argument, you can win the argument just by pointing out the tricks.

Another dirty trick is to pretend your opponent is being dishonest, though this only works when your audience both cares about intellectual honesty and cannot tell what it is.

[The Second Stone]

8. Hilarious book

I just read it recently, picking it up on Kindle thinking I might learn something.

[Jim Lane]

11. Good list, but he left out one that's popular on DU

May I humbly suggest an addition:

39. If your opponent's position on some particular point is also held by a third party, then attack other views held by the third party, even if your current opponent does not in fact share them.

This can also be combined with Schopenhauer's #35 ("Instead of working on an opponent's intellect, work on his or her motive.&quot You attack the motives of other people who agree with your opponent.