I found Epstein’s Chapter 4 Repairing Arguments quite interesting because it’s pretty common in casual discussion to have to backtrack a conversation just so you can fix what you previously said. I find it more often than not, this happens in heated debates among non-professional debaters because they use an argument that’s just way too ahead of themselves. Or maybe that’s just me... I don’t know, but I guess in a personal sense, having to repair an argument is a regular thing!
I’m particularly referring to “The Mark of Irrationality.” This concept states that if you recognize an argument is good, it would be irrational to not accept the conclusion. As I was reading this in the chapter, I was initially thinking this should just be called the Mark of Stubbornness (haha) but it’s a little more complex than that. This mark of irrationality challenges the people in argument to reason out what they believe, is the argument good or not? Is it just clever or appealing?
If an argument is good, and you can’t find a reason as to not believing so, then be rational and take it! Or try to counter-claim with another good argument. That’s what I call a good debate. Then again, I’m just me, repairing my arguments on a regular basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment