I'm taking a class which would normally be straight BS, Critical Decision Making. But it's actually turning out to be damn cool, because it's an online class in a message-board format. The teacher posts a question, and you "reply" to it in an informal message-board type of format. Here's my response for today, inspired by OA's Iamnaked:
In message 199 on Monday, February 21, 2005 3:20pm, <name omitted> writes:
>Epstein, in chapter three, talks about What makes a good argument? and provides
>some tests on p. 43. Lets say you are in a group, and someone is making a case that
>the group ought to endorse a candidate in the upcoming election. Their argument is
>Everyone knows that other candidate is a jerk, and besides, itll really increase our
>visibility on campus and well get new members if we do this. You watch as a fight
>breaks out over this, which quickly degenerates into You know nothing, No, you know
>nothing. You know that not only is this not a good reason for endorsing a candidate, it
>has now created real conflict in the group. Reading on Storming in Rothwell, and
>knowing what you know about making a strong and valid argument, how would you seek
>to defuse this situation and make a clear argument for your position?
First, how would I defuse the situation? Well, obviously, the first thing I would have to do is lift the offender over my head, say "It's time for your logical fallacy" in a gritty, menacing tone of voice, and toss him through the nearest window. I'm sure anyone else would do the same. If I wanted to avoid prison time, though, I'd do something which would be less damaging to property, but similar in effect: I would take the opportunity to take a leadership role and gently lead the discussion in the right direction (mine). Since I am tall, devastatingly handsome and have the voice of a radio announcer, people listen to me when I speak. It would be like taking candy from a baby, baby. That, and I would have free pizza handy as an instant defusing device.
Having earned the rapt and unquestioning attention of all present, one way or another, I'd stride up to the chalkboard, my beautiful ass bobbing behind me confidently, and draw a cross shape. I would write one candidate's name above the left column, and the other's on the right, and ask the class to list positive traits of each. I wouldn't judge at this point: I would just take everything down and keep taking new suggestions. Then once I had a good collection of traits, I'd draw a second cross shape and ask them to name some negative traits of each candidate. Once I had accomplished this, I'd offer my own personal, unbiased opinions on which traits listed would and would not have an effect on leadership ability. By the time I finished, there would be a clear picture to everyone involved about how the candidates stacked up, and I wouldn't have lost credibility at any point along the way by revealing a slant in one direction or the other. (I'm assuming, for the sake of this post, that neither candidate is my girlfriend.) At all times, an onlooker who dared to disagree with me on one point or another could make the proper adjustment in his own mind. Or they could speak up and get tossed out the window.
The above is my favored method. There are other ways, though. Let's say that I tried to take the approach of defending the candidate who was called a jerk, using my magnificent persuasive powers to aid and abet me. It would go something like this: "You want to call my man a jerk. That's fine - you're free to pass your own judgment on his perceived moral character. I won't stop you. Personally, though, I'm less interested in the personality contest and more interested in what the candidates could actually do for us. And personally, I really like the idea of free pizza on Fridays. It's sensible, it's incredibly yummy, and it may even improve graduation rates if none of the students want to be anywhere else on Fridays."
I doubt many people would disagree.
In message 199 on Monday, February 21, 2005 3:20pm, <name omitted> writes:
>Epstein, in chapter three, talks about What makes a good argument? and provides
>some tests on p. 43. Lets say you are in a group, and someone is making a case that
>the group ought to endorse a candidate in the upcoming election. Their argument is
>Everyone knows that other candidate is a jerk, and besides, itll really increase our
>visibility on campus and well get new members if we do this. You watch as a fight
>breaks out over this, which quickly degenerates into You know nothing, No, you know
>nothing. You know that not only is this not a good reason for endorsing a candidate, it
>has now created real conflict in the group. Reading on Storming in Rothwell, and
>knowing what you know about making a strong and valid argument, how would you seek
>to defuse this situation and make a clear argument for your position?
First, how would I defuse the situation? Well, obviously, the first thing I would have to do is lift the offender over my head, say "It's time for your logical fallacy" in a gritty, menacing tone of voice, and toss him through the nearest window. I'm sure anyone else would do the same. If I wanted to avoid prison time, though, I'd do something which would be less damaging to property, but similar in effect: I would take the opportunity to take a leadership role and gently lead the discussion in the right direction (mine). Since I am tall, devastatingly handsome and have the voice of a radio announcer, people listen to me when I speak. It would be like taking candy from a baby, baby. That, and I would have free pizza handy as an instant defusing device.
Having earned the rapt and unquestioning attention of all present, one way or another, I'd stride up to the chalkboard, my beautiful ass bobbing behind me confidently, and draw a cross shape. I would write one candidate's name above the left column, and the other's on the right, and ask the class to list positive traits of each. I wouldn't judge at this point: I would just take everything down and keep taking new suggestions. Then once I had a good collection of traits, I'd draw a second cross shape and ask them to name some negative traits of each candidate. Once I had accomplished this, I'd offer my own personal, unbiased opinions on which traits listed would and would not have an effect on leadership ability. By the time I finished, there would be a clear picture to everyone involved about how the candidates stacked up, and I wouldn't have lost credibility at any point along the way by revealing a slant in one direction or the other. (I'm assuming, for the sake of this post, that neither candidate is my girlfriend.) At all times, an onlooker who dared to disagree with me on one point or another could make the proper adjustment in his own mind. Or they could speak up and get tossed out the window.
The above is my favored method. There are other ways, though. Let's say that I tried to take the approach of defending the candidate who was called a jerk, using my magnificent persuasive powers to aid and abet me. It would go something like this: "You want to call my man a jerk. That's fine - you're free to pass your own judgment on his perceived moral character. I won't stop you. Personally, though, I'm less interested in the personality contest and more interested in what the candidates could actually do for us. And personally, I really like the idea of free pizza on Fridays. It's sensible, it's incredibly yummy, and it may even improve graduation rates if none of the students want to be anywhere else on Fridays."
I doubt many people would disagree.