Beg to Differ: The Logic of Disputes and Argumentation

145 Pages·2016·1.46 MB·English

by  Joseph Agassi

Joseph Agassi
Abraham Meidan
Beg
to
Differ
The Logic of Disputes
and Argumentation
Beg to Differ

Joseph Agassi (cid:129) Abraham Meidan
Beg to Differ
The Logic of Disputes and Argumentation
Joseph Agassi Abraham Meidan
Tel-Aviv University WizSoft
Tel-Aviv , Israel Tel-Aviv , Israel
ISBN 978-3-319-33306-9 ISBN 978-3-319-33307-6 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-33307-6
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016938794
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
T his work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
T he use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
T he publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Copernicus imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland
Pref ace
M ost people get involved in arguments on some occasions or other. Unfortunately,
many of these arguments are frustrating. How can this frustration be avoided? How
should we conduct debates? These are the questions that the current handbook deals
with.
Our basic assumption is that you can learn the rules of conducting debates so that
you will enjoy them, and you will enjoy them mainly since you will learn from
them, but you will also enjoy the game that you can view the way you view a game
of chess.
M any other handbooks list suggestions as to how to conduct debates. Most of
them refer to debates in the debating clubs that many schools have instituted. They
list suggestions such as how you should look at your opponent, how you should
dress and how you should talk in order to win the debate without losing friends. The
present handbook does not belong to this genre. Our aim is to list the rules of debate
that make the activity as rational as possible.
The suggestions we make here are not new. Rather, they describe the way ratio-
nal debates are conducted in science. We suggest that implementing these rules in
the debates that you have with your friends and relations will reduce the frustration
and increase your ability to learn from them.
W e will present our suggestions in two ways. The fi rst few chapters present our
views on rational debate, in contrast with the views that propel other handbooks.
The next few chapters present the rules of rational debate. The following chapters
review debates in various fi elds and discuss the relevance of the rules to the debates.
We try there to review most of fi elds where popular debates take place.
The book addresses a wide audience—from students in secondary schools up to
scholars in universities, from readers with theoretical interests to readers with prac-
tical ones. We assume no previous knowledge, so that everyone can read this book,
yet we hope that our suggestions will interest and help everyone engaged in debates,
including experts in the art of debates.
v
vi Preface
W e hope that you fi nd our suggestions practical and effi cient. If not, please let us
know, and tell us what is wrong with them. We thank you in advance for your
criticism and promise to correct and improve our suggestions in the next edition of
this handbook.
Tel-Aviv , Israel Joseph Agassi
Tel-Aviv , Israel Abraham Meidan
March 2015
Contents
1 On the Frustration That Debates Cause ............................................... 1
Avoiding Frustrating Debates ................................................................... 6
2 Resolving a Dispute ................................................................................. 15
Debates About Theories ............................................................................ 21
3 Improving the Wording of the Questions Under Dispute .................... 27
4 The Burden of Proof ............................................................................... 41
Generalizations and Existential Statements .............................................. 42
5 Disputes About General Facts and Theories ........................................ 45
Ad-hoc Theories ........................................................................................ 47
Simplicity .................................................................................................. 50
Predictions vs. Explanations ..................................................................... 52
The Theory of Evolution or Evolutionism ................................................ 55
Global Warming ........................................................................................ 57
6 Disputes About Statistical Generalizations ........................................... 59
Accidental Patterns ................................................................................... 66
Debates About Healthy Diets .................................................................... 67
7 Metaphysical Disputes ............................................................................ 69
The Mind-Body Problem .......................................................................... 71
The Problem of Free Choice ..................................................................... 75
What Is Really the Case? .......................................................................... 77
Does God Exist? ....................................................................................... 78
8 Disputes About History and Predictions ............................................... 83
Long-Range Forecasts .............................................................................. 89
Global Famine ........................................................................................... 92
vii
viii Contents
9 Disputes About Technology, Including Medicine ................................. 93
Disputes About Advantages and Drawbacks ............................................ 97
Global Warming II .................................................................................... 99
10 Disputes About Ethics and Politics ........................................................ 101
The Choice of a Lifestyle .......................................................................... 101
Criteria for Ethics and Politics .................................................................. 102
Politics....................................................................................................... 108
Human Rights ........................................................................................... 110
The Problem of Inequality ........................................................................ 111
National Rights ......................................................................................... 112
Global Politics ........................................................................................... 113
Popular Political Principles and Styles ..................................................... 114
11 Disputes About Aesthetics ...................................................................... 117
12 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 123
Appendix: Skepticism ..................................................................................... 127
A Brief History of Skepticism .................................................................. 129
Bibliography .................................................................................................... 133
Index ................................................................................................................. 135
Introd uction

This handbook is an attempt to familiarize our readers in a very simple and easy
manner the rule of the proper procedures of rational debate. The aim of this exercise
is one: to reduce the frustration that many people experience when engaging in
debates. The rationale for it is our opinion that the proper conduct of debates is both
fun and great intellectual progress. It is an empirical observation that young people
who did not do well in school become excellent students after spending some time
in rabbinical schools, where they practice debates. If this is true, then it is but one
illustration of the fact that learning to debate by the rules makes debate fun and
debate is the fastest means for rapid progress in learning.
T his then is a handbook on the theory and practice of argumentation. There are
many kinds of argument, public and private, everyday, political and scientifi c. Their
rules vary. We will touch upon this later on in some detail, but our chief concern is
in the private debate between two individuals, d ialogue (two-speak), including those
dialogues that become public and engage public opinions. The paradigm cases of
such arguments are those presented in the early dialogues of Plato and the published
debates between the two greatest physicists of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein
and Niels Bohr . Those latter concern the different ways of looking at quantum the-
ory. And although today no physicist advocates the views of either Einstein or Bohr,
the debate still is a classic.
A paragraph about Plato’s early dialogues. They display the way to argue, and
they are also our documentation about the rules of debate. Indeed, one may look at
them as studies each devoted to a discussion of one rule. The leading character in
these dialogues is Socrates, the greatest expert on argument ever. Yet he viewed the
rules of the game as established and as well known. This does not mean that they are
followed. Indeed, Plato’s dialogues suggest very clearly that they were repeatedly
violated. Plato, it seems, suggested that some experts—they were called sophists
(s ophos is wise)—taught aspiring politicians how to violate the rules of debates
with impunity so as to win elections. Of course, cheating in every game is to be
expected, and as we have today people who can teach how to cheat at cards or in
business, there must have been such people in antiquity; yet Plato’s sweeping charge
against all the sophists is now doubted. He disagreed with them about the purpose
ix