According to Epstein, there are three ways to "refute" an argument. The first step would to be to prove that one of the premises is "dubious." The second step to "refuting" an argument would be to show that the argument is weak or invalid. The third and final step would to prove and show that the conclusion to the argument is not true. All of these steps equal up to refuting an argument DIRECTLY. An example of how to do so would look like this: "Jack is a stubborn kid, so no one likes him. He likes to talk back to people, and it's very hard for him to change his mind" A way to refute this directly would be to simply state back, "Just because someone is stubborn does not mean people would not like them. A lot of people can be opinionated and hard-headed and still be in favor by many people." The first statement is a very weak one, and could be easily argued against. Because the premises are flawed, it is easy to point them out and state an opposing argument.
In order to refute an argument INDIRECTLY, however, would be to somehow show that there is no agreement upon the argument without straight up saying it. From the example above, one way to do this would sound a little like, "Jack just has a hard time adjusting his views and seeing two sides to the story. He usually likes to stick to what he knows, therefore usually believing that his way is the right way." From that, the person is not directly saying anything against the first claim. This is more of like a lighter version of opposing the claim, somewhat giving an explanation to hinder any negative thoughts about Jack being a stubborn person.
No comments:
Post a Comment