One concept from chapter 7 that I have trouble grasping is the statement: "it is irrational to say that an argument is good and then deny its conclusion." The fact is that this statement has been introduced to us before, yet I still have trouble with it. I don't know why I have trouble with this, but for some reason I just can't explain why I don't like it or why it makes sense. If someone could reply to this post with a better grasp of this concept I would greatly appreciate it. But now on to chapter 7 concepts. If you are able to raise objections towards a persons argument you are showing how this argument is bad. According to the book, this is one of the best ways to counter a person's argument. By showing a premise is weak, then you are showing how the argument is weak. This makes complete sense to me, because arguments are completely based on their premises. As stated in the book, premises become glued together to support a conclusion. In a multi layered argument, premises can be seen as mini-arguments. By proving these premises dubious, showing an argument isn't valid or strong, or showing that a conclusion is false are direct ways of refuting an argument. (Epstein, 149)
Refuting Indirectly: As stated in the book, sometimes during an argument we have trouble directly proving a premises wrong. An example could be a well-studied field of science that you MIGHT think something is wrong with. But having a well-educated person countering your premises could be hard for you to counter. In this case, we need to indirectly refute claims. By having dubious premises, we can draw a false or unwanted conclusion from them. This shows how directly premises need to be in order to have a strong and valid argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment