Rules for Critical Discussion

Rules for Critical Discussion
by Frans Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst,
taken from "Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation" by Douglas Walton,
Cambridge University Press, 2006.



1. Parties must not prevent each other from advancing or casting doubt on each
others viewpoints.

2. Whoever advances a viewpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so.

3. An attack on a viewpoint must represent the viewpoint that has really been
advanced by the protagonist.

4. A viewpoint may be defended or attacked only by advancing argumentation
that is relevant to that viewpoint.

5. A person can be held responsible for the unstated premises he leaves implicit
in his argument.

6. A viewpoint is regarded as conclusively defended only if the defense takes
place by means of argumentation based on premises accepted by the other party,
and it meets the requirements of Rule 8.

7. A viewpoint is regarded as conclusively defended only if the defense takes
place by means of arguments in which an argumentation scheme is correctly
applied.

8. A viewpoint is regarded as conclusively defended only if supported by a chain
of argumentation meeting the requirements of rules 6 and 7 and if the unstated
premises in the chain of argumentation are accepted by the other party.

9. A failed defense must result in the proponent withdrawing her thesis and a
successful defense must result in the respondent withdrawing his doubt about
the proponents thesis.

10. Formulations of questions and arguments must not be obscure, excessively
vague, or confusingly ambiguous and must be interpreted as accurately as
possible.

Feedback Please!

Please contribute your feedback here.

Common Religious Reasoning Schemes

[Draft Copy] Reasoning Schemes are only fallacious when they are unwarranted.
For example an appeal to popularity is not always fallacious, even though the superficial treatment of it in the average university logic book will lead you to believe it is.
Below are some examples
Click "Read more >>" for access.

Causal Oversimplification
Straw Man
Black and White Thinking, Excluded Middle

Theist comment
I find vagueness, the unknown, to be the impetus for a thirst for knowledge - that stirs a desire to seek - not something that necessarily requires avoidance (and in accordance with you,at a prioritized level at that!) Rather than avoid, it can be acknowledged and used for inspiration.

Analyst comment
it seems you've overlooked the context of the article, and exhibited
"black and white thinking".

if you ask an acquaintance for the recipe of a dish you've sampled at a social, do you expect it to be vague. Would you be satisfied if it were vague?

If you ask someone for a phone number or a business address, do expect them to be vague? Would you be satisfied if they were vague?

Do you think the Emergency Medical System could function using Vague information?

Ad Hominem

Notes

Categories
Click "Read more >>" for access.My Categories
Study of
///// Categories with ScienceDaily links ///////////////////
* Anthropology - http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/fossils_ruins/anthropology/

* Behavior - http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/mind_brain/behavior/
-- Borderline Personality Disorder - http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/mind_brain/borderline_personality_disorder/

* Behavioral Science - http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/plants_animals/behavior/

* Cognitive Bias - http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/cognitive_bias.htm
- http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/l/list_of_cognitive_biases.htm

* Perception - http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/mind_brain/perception/

* Memory - memory: http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/mind_brain/memory/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/l/list_of_memory_biases.htm

* Free Will - site:www.sciencedaily.com "free will"

* Witness Testimony - site:www.sciencedaily.com "eye witness"
- site:www.sciencedaily.com "eyewitness"

* Communication - site:www.sciencedaily.com "communication"

* Cognition - http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/cognition.htm

* Animal Cognition - http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/a/animal_cognition.htm

///// Categories without ScienceDaily links ///////////////////
* Evidence
* IDQ
* Relationships
* Love
* Suffering
* Benevolence
* Omniscience
* Omnipotence
* spirituality - http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/mind_brain/spirituality/


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Defining terms and scope of
* Suffering
* Love
* Benevolence
* Omniscience
* Omnipotence

Principles of:
* Evidence, Witness Testimony
* Information and Data Quality
* Communication
* Relationships
* Perenting
* Reasoning
* Benevolence







the rest

Topic Heirarchy

Cognitive Science,
  |_Comparative Psychology, Animal Cognition
  |_Epistemology
  |_Decision Making
    |_
       |_

  |_Dualism
    |_Free Will
    |_Morality
    |_Soul
    |_Spirit
    |_Consciousness



    |_

Feedback Please!

Leave me some feedback in the comment section. Thanks in advance!

Suggestions, Requests, Questions? Click Here.

Click on the comments link to add them. I get comments sent to me in real time via email.

Why All the News Posts?

I track and post news articles to sample and display in real time the effect that religious and faith based decision making has on the world.