Part 1 in a SquareLink blog series on practical critical thinking

What thought or idea pissed you off the most this week?

We here on Steemit have a unique opportunity to push the reset button on how we present ideas, and how we disagree. Many of us come here as refugees from dictatorial regimes on other social media platforms that respond to alternative views by harsh censorship. Keep in mind that progress comes from the fringes, those pushing boundaries. We NEED to hear alternate views.

The goal of this article is to offer a suggestion on how we engage in public discourse with divergent opinions in a way that generates more light than heat, and perhaps even salvages a bit of honor for the much maligned concept of rhetoric. In other words, how do I make the Best argument that will stand on its own merits and open the door to positive change.. This is useful for any content creator that challenges entrenched ideas from any venue. (Disclaimer: This is a brief overview and not intended to cover the details of Logic, Literary Devices, Argumentation theory or Rhetoric).

My premise is that a. we have forgotten how language is used for argumentation (Rhetoric), and b.we now accept often irrational or unsupported negative comments as a stand in for an actual argument. Finally, c. the end result is we have lost the ability to disagree in a productive way with opposing viewpoints.

I will propose in response to this premise, that alongside educating ourselves, we can actually take six steps to help improve our argument, so it has a better chance of being heard, and thus driving change. These simple steps are:

1. State your opponents position in the BEST possible light, making the BEST argument possible FOR that with which you disagree.
2. Ignore everything else, except the ARGUMENT.
3. Break the argument down into premises, warrent, and conclusion.
4. Demonstrate the weakness of the arguement based on things like invalid premises, insufficiant warrent, false conclusion, etc.
5. Correct the mistake or construct your competing argument using valid premises, sufficient warrent that leads to a logical conclusion.
6. Rewrite all of the above using rehortic that gets the reader to both logically and emotionally support your position.

---

We have forgotten how language is used for argumentation in social discourse

Yes, this is going to be a somewhat simplistic causation, but it is still accurate. I was never required to read Cicero in high school, or college, or grad-school, or post grad studies. Oh, shoot, that means many of us probably need a refresher on this dude, and why for centuries, much of the educational process dealt with reading and knowing Cicero.

Cicero was a consul of the Roman Republic in office around 63 BCE. A loose American analog might be the Attorney General. Not only did he introduce the Romans to Greek Philosophy, but his writings became the gold standard for successful rhetoric (persuasive speaking and writing). It is said that he is the single most important influence on European, (and thus American), literature.

But I did not learn this in school. Nor did I earn HOW to construct an argument, or how to present an oral defense of an idea. Suddenly I found myself defending my masters thesis and was told I needed to prepare for an oral defense. Huh?

Another red flag for me when I was reading some very old texts and I began to suspect that the figures of speech that were being used were intended to advance a particular argument, which I could not understand because I was unfamiliar with the devices employed.

Here is a test, write down every figure of speech you can think of and what it means to the best of your knowledge. Then go look at Wikipedia: Figures of Speech. How many did you know? Were you right on the ones you were already familiar with?

---

We now accept often irrational or unsupported negative comments as a stand in for an actual argument

Firstly, it is important to realize that rational discourse it not needed among your friends. It is valuable, but not completely necessary because often we share the same underlying values, and have a communication informed by shared ideas and experiences. But if we want our views to challenge those outside our circle of trust, we need to work a bit harder.

Often it seems today, our response to opposing views from outside our social group is to challenge the moral fiber, intellect, or motivations of our interlocutors. This gets great aplomb from our social group, however, the triggers that get set off by well worn stigmatization and prejudices result in any constructive counterfactual being discarded by those that the most need to hear it.

Rephrase: We tend to bitch to our friends and reduce the argument to name calling and character assassination where any good ideas never get heard outside our circle.

We could go into the impact of social media on this devolution of social dialogue, but suffice to say that it plays a role, and so we who are using this platform have an inherent responsibility to fight against the easy and base nature of today's discourse.

Argumentation: the action or process of reasoning systematically in support of an idea, action, or theory

(For a helpful explication on 'Validity' and 'Soundness' in argumentation see this excellent article)

I propose that we need to do the following:
A. Spend some time learning how to argue well, as it is our only hope for future progress together.
B. Follow these six steps when making an argument against someone else's position.

1. State your opponents position in the BEST possible light, making the BEST argument possible FOR that with which you disagree.

Wait, please keep reading here, I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but it is extremely necessary. Why? Because your argument that describes a. the weakness in their position and ** b.**your superior approach, is only valid if you present the BEST possible argument that you are against.

Now, I know this goes against EVERYTHING we have learned by watching the news, and from social media. In fact, I would propose that those engaged in the hot debates of our times are not actually interested in reaching the best possible solution that values different perspectives. If you make proposal A. and I respond by stating that A will not work because you are a poopyhead, I have not advanced the conversation. I have made those that agree with me laugh, and confirmed the suspicions of my opponents that I am not actually worth talking to, nor am I interested in solutions. What we see often today is people attacking the person (ad hominem) and not the position and responding to thier claim with an equally baseless counter claim. This will get us nowhere.

2. Ignore everything else, except the ARGUMENT.

To advance an alternate view, you have to demonstrate that the ARGUMENT is flawed. Leave all animosity at the door. We should also do this humbly and open to the possibility that this may be a difficult person with a valid idea and argument.

3. Break the argument down into premises, warrant, and conclusion.

Any argument has a Premise or Proposition that looks something like 'Because A, and so B, therefore the action required is C'. (There are several types but this serves as an example). This is an important step that requires decoding all the tribal language, emotion, claims, etc. and making a simple construct that gets to the essential premise, lists the warrent used to validate the premise and conclusion, and clearly states how the conclusion is logically derived. Remember here to make the best possible case for this opposing view.

4. Demonstrate the weakness of the argument based on things like invalid premises, insufficient warrant, false conclusion, etc.

You have a problem with this argument for a reason that hopefully goes beyond a person or group with whom you disagree or dislike. Now is your chance. The best way to get others to be open to your proposal, is for them to see that there is a problem with the argument.

Ask yourself if the premis is valid. Take a look at the warrent provided and ask yourself if what is provided is actually evidence, or if it is just secondary claims used to support a previous claim. (Time to brush up on logical fallicies). The warrent has to relate to the premis, and has to serve to validate the premise by accepted evidence:

A. Accepted Measurement: A car speeding can be measured by radar, earthquakes can be measured by a sizemograph, etc.
B. Natural Law/Physics: A stone sinks in water, an object at rest stays at rest uless acted upon... you get the idea.
C. Observation: Often in the form of an accepted eye-witness, or research done by an accepted authority, published according to academic standards, etc.
D. Statistics - These can be tricky, especially if there are contradictory reports by different groups. These are the most effective when using the same research source (if valid), as your opponents. Incorrect statistics can also be challenged by having an accepted expert in the field present Observation (research) that demonstrates the weakness or intentional shaping of the statistics.

5. Correct the mistake or construct your competing argument using valid premises, sufficient warrant that leads to a logical conclusion.

It might be that just correcting an invalid premise, or showing that better evidence points to a different conclusion is going to be the strongest argument. Other times, you might construct a new premise and argue why it is better to address the issue. Then make sure your own argument is based around logic, rational thinking, and solid evidence.

6. Rewrite all of the above using rhetoric that gets the reader to both logically and emotionally support your position.

Might be good to read some on classical rhetoric and find out really how to use language persuasively. But if you know your intended audience, and understand the appeal of the issue, then you can craft a narrative that sells your argument in a winsome fashion. This is a bad thing to do if you have to real basis for your position as it looks deceitful by making people think there is something to an empty argument. If however your underlying work is strong, then this just helps put a human face on the argument and those who look past the pretty narrative, will find the bedrock of a well researched argument, properly supported, and leading to your recommended conclusion.

This sounds like a lot of work, but with practice, we can get better and faster at doing this. Chances are, there are already good sources of evidence compiled for your argument, you just have to find it. One example of this is I recently suggested that my mother speak with her doctor about a new medical procedure. She asked where I heard about this, and I told her I looked it up. She responded that I should not believe everything I read on the internet. I laughed and said that when I reference the internet for a medical procedure, I am not looking at Wikipedia, but rather the article I found came from the American Journal of Medicine, reporting on a six year study conducted by the top medical researchers in the particular area working out of Johns Hopkins.

Now that you have this information, please use it responsibility. Do not beat up your friends on social media who are claiming that some essential oils are curing their aunts cancer. It's just not fair. (disclaimer: I'm not saying this is impossible, only that the argument and evidence I have seen for this kind of thing has not met the standard of evidence based support of a position.

Lets talk, disagree and even argue, but lets do it in a way that moves us all forward, and respects our fellow man.

---

Until next time my friends,

@phaazer1 [SquareLink]

If you can Dream it, you can Steem it.

Please add a comment with any questions, comments, or other ideas.