When you have an argument, you have an arguer's point of view and the audience's point of view. The arguer is convinced of the conclusion, the audience is presumed to be not convinced, otherwise no argument would be needed. The adequacy of an argument is determined by the question of whether the argument provides something that the audience ought to believe (assuming the audience is being rational). An argument can be convincing without being a logically good argument. However, a logically good argument ought to be convincing, even if it is not.
5 comments:
An argument can be convincing without being a logically good argument.
Only if you don't value reason as a means to acquire truth.
However, a logically good argument ought to be convincing, even if it is not.
Only if you do value reason as a means to acquire truth.
Most people are not logically trained, so rhetorical flourishes that generate emotional responses have far more weight than they ought.
A person could value reasons as a means to acquire truth, but be confused about what makes an argument a good one.
A person could value reasons as a means to acquire truth, but be confused about what makes an argument a good one.
I think this is basically what Legion was getting at. Some people don't value reason at all and others do but are ignorant of how it works either through lack of study or lack of ability.
Still others have the ability, but will not to use it correctly for personal reasons in certain cases.
Post a Comment