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.