Deepstash brings you key ideas from the most inspiring articles like this one:
Read more efficiently
Save what inspires you
Save all ideas
While the premises may be true in an argument, the conclusion may or may not be correct, making the argument invalid. Example of an incorrect argument: Some New Yorkers are rude, some of them are artists, therefore some artists are rude.
A counterexample method is a powerful way to prove an argument’s conclusion to be invalid. You can use this method by: isolating the argument form and then constructing an argument with the same form that is obviously invalid.
The counterexample method is effective at exposing the invalidity of deductive arguments.
SIMILAR ARTICLES & IDEAS:
It can feel impossible to persuade someone with strong views. This is in part because we look for information to confirm what we already know and avoid or dismiss facts that are opposed to our core...
We all tend to overrate the power of arguments we find convincing, and wrongly think the other side will be converted. It is pointless to argue a point that your opponents have already dismissed.
The answer is not to simply expose people to another point of view. Find out what resonates with them. Frame your message with buzzwords that reflect their values.
To try and sway the other side, use their morals against them. People have stable morals that influence their worldview.
However, reframing in terms of values might not turn your opponent's view, but can soften his stance and get him to listen to counterarguments.
According to the Falsification Principle of Karl Popper, we cannot prove the validity of a hypothesis. We can only disprove it.
However, we can get closer to the truth by improving...
Inductive reasoning involves looking for a trend or a pattern, then using the observations to formulate a general truth. For example, "When I eat peanuts, my throat swells up and I have difficulty breathing. Therefore, I'm likely allergic to peanuts."
Deductive reasoning starts from established facts, then applies logical steps to reach a conclusion. For example, "Bachelors are unmarried men. Jack is unmarried. Therefore, Jack is a bachelor."
Premise 1: I can’t explain or imagine how proposition X can be true.
Premise 2: if a certain proposition is true, then I must be able to explain or imagine how that can be.
... and to bring this up as part of an argument. The issue with doing so occurs when this incredulity isn’t justified or supported by concrete information, and when this lack of belief is used in order to assume that a preferred personal explanation must be the right one, despite the lack of proof.
At the same time, it’s also important to remember that it’s possible that the person using the argument from incredulity is right, despite the fact that their reasoning is flawed.