As we said, student votes are not the only things that we considered when we decided
which arguments to comment on this week. But there was one argument that received
over 200 votes and, it comments on something from the very first week of the
course. So, it's a great place to start.
Here it is. Strong arguments don't always persuade
everyone. By, Jessica Hyde, in the United Kingdom.
It's not enough for an argument to be strong, valid and sound to be persuasive.
You can have an argument for which every premise is genuinely true.
And where every conceivable flaw in the argument is negated.
And still not have it be persuasive. There will almost always be someone who
either misunderstands the argument or blindly believes the opposite of a premise
in face of facts. Human beings aren't always logical and
don't always believe scientifically proven cause and effect.
Religious and cultural beliefs can be too hard to overcome.
So, even the best arguments can have disbelievers.
Thank you, Jessica. What a great argument.
I'm convinced. The topic of this argument goes all the
way back to week one, because it's really about the difference between persuasion
and justification. Those were two of the purposes of
arguments that we studied in week one. Remember, to persuade someone is to
convince them or change their mind into believing what you wanted them to believe
and what you were trying to get them to believe.
Where it's justified, is giving them a reason to believe your conclusion.
And those are different, because as Jessica argues very well, sometimes people
make mistakes. You give a perfectly good argument with
perfectly good premises, and it's formulated as clearly as could ever be
expected. And yet, they don't understand it, or they
don't believe your premises, and so they're not persuaded.
But still, you did give a good argument. So you succeeded in justifying your
belief. But what was it a good argument if you
were trying to persuade them? Or maybe not.
If your purpose was trying to persuade them, then it might matter to you that you
didn't persuade. Whereas if your purpose was to justify the
conclusion, to give a reason to believe it then you did succeed in that purpose.
So whether you see it as a good argument or not is going to depend a lot on what
your purpose is. Now we've been assuming throughout a lot
of this course that the point was to justify, and to give good reason.
So we've been learning how to asseess whether arugments really give good reasons
or not. But as Jessica points out, sometimes
you're going to want to persuade and it's not always going to be easy to turn an
argument that justifies and gives a good reason into one that persuades.
That is going to depend on making sure that they do accept your premises and that
they do understand your arguments and that's yet another trick.
That we haven't discussed perhaps as much as we should've.
And we learn another lesson from one of the student comments on Jessica's
argument. Here it is, from Judith.
I think Jessica has opened a very interesting discussion with her argument.
Thank you Jessica, I appreciate that. We do too.
What I'm learning is the purpose of an argument is to state with clarity and some
degree of certainty an opinion or point of view.
A valid, strong and sound argument in and of itself may never persuade or convert
anyone to adopt a different way of thinking.
So what? What a strong argument does is communicate
clearly what one thinks. And why they think it.
So I guess the benchmark of success for many arguements is not complete
persuasion, but is how clearly one is understood.
If someone's intent is to blindly refute everything, that's not an intellectually
honest engagement. I found that in constructing better, more
thoughtful arguments, people may not agree with me, but they're far more considerate
of what I have to say. About using much of what we're learning.
I'm listening much more intently about other views.
Yes, Jessica many things do defy logic. We just keep trying to do our best.
Thank you Judith. What a great point.
Because what you've done, is you've shown us that they're other goals of arguments
in addition to persuasion and justification.
One you mentioned was understanding. Sometimes the point of an argument is not
to bring other people over to your point of view, but just to make them understand
why you hold the position that you do. If you're trying to show them your reasons
even if you know that those reasons are not reasons that they themselves are going
to accept. Well why would you want to do that?
As you say, because it makes them more considerate of what you believe and of
you, because if we understand each other and the reasons why we hold our positions,
we'll respect each other more, and be more considerate, not always.
Of course, there are going to be exceptions.
But as a general trend, we're going to get along with each other much better if we
understand why we disagree. And what reasons we have.
The example where this is not working is politics.
Everybody knows that politicians just yell at each other and don't really listen to
each other. They just scream out what's going to
appeal to their base without thinking about what the real reasons are for the
positions they're holding. I think they'd be a lot better off and
we'd be a lot better off if they were to take Judith's lesson and say, give us the
reason so that we can understand why you're adopting that position.
We'll give you our reasons so you can understand why we're adopting our
position. And then we can seek a compromise by
satisfying the values that we both are most concerned about.
And arguments can play a role then, in helping us cooperate with each other and
live with each other and compromise on the very important issues that we all face.
Another lesson that Jessica and Judith have taught us, is don't set your sights
too high. If your goal is to persuade everybody,
you're going to be constantly frustrated, because there are always going to be
people out there who don't understand your argument.
Or who understand it, but are obstinate. And refuse to accept your premise, no
matter how well you argue for it. So if you try to convince everybody,
you're not going to succeed. So give it up.
You can't convince or persuade everyone. Still, you can accomplish a lot.
You can, help them understand you. You can come to understand them, and you
can give them good reasons to believe your conclusion.
Well, that's a lie and that can be very important, even if they're not persuaded.
And you, if you're justified in believing your conclusion, can have reason to
believe that the fault lies with them, not with you, when they don't accept your
conclusion. Of course you probably can't convince them
of that. You can't convince them that the fault
lies with them, not with you. But still, you might have accomplished
your goals, if your goals are reasonable. Namely, to increase understanding, to find
the reasons for your belief, and to present those reasons in ways that people,
ought to understand and accept. That's what justification is, and that's
what understanding is. And those can be extremely valuable in
arguments. Even if there's still some people out
there, who aren't pursauded.