Quote: (07-04-2017 11:04 PM)stugatz Wrote:
I read Vox Day's SJWs Always Lie not too long ago, and he mainly says:
1. Argue against a logical point with logic
2. Argue against a false logical point with real logic
3. Argue against an emotional argument with your own emotional argument - just troll them and don't even bother making it serious.
I'd ask another question, though - are logical fallacies the be-all end-all? Is there a point where a logical argument can be defeated by one that's completely fallacy-ridden? (I've noticed over the years that liberals LOVE having been on a debate team in high school...they can know nothing about an issue, but shoot your point down with "nope, that's a Texas Sharpshooter, a slippery slope, and a tu quoque, you lose.")
We already have the "fallacy fallacy", which is an acknowledgement that a logical fallacy doesn't necessarily sink an argument out of hand. But how far does it go?
The first thing to note is that logic is a component of a more complex concept of "rational argument," which also includes concepts of facts and first principles. The general answer to all your questions is that it depends on the game being played and also what your motives are. Vox Day's advice is a quick-and-dirty way to correctly identity the operative game and respond appropriately. When the goal is discovery of truth, rational argument has proven to be the best tool humans have discovered. So when you want to learn the truth, use the most rational argument possible, and try to engage with people interested in the same.
The second thing to note is that rhetoric, in the sense of being the aspect of persuasion in communication, is an essential component of any argument, even a rational one. Rather than a dichotomy, rhetoric and logic are best thought of as components of a whole. The common term "empty rhetoric" comes from this idea. It means an argument with no substance, only cheap persuasive tricks. The implication is that a substantial argument has a rhetorical component.
The problem with purely rational argument is that, cognitively speaking, it is very expensive. Humans can't afford to use reason to make individual decisions, so they are built to rely on intuition, and then to use reason to explain and justify that intuition to others (The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt). Over time, those explanations are acted out and become a body of knowledge passed down among generations of people as they evolve (see Jordan Peterson's Biblical Lecture Series for more insight on this).
Because rationality tends to yield more pragmatic truth than intuition in the long run, we have a strong incentive to set up systems (aka games) designed to subvert human intuition in favor of reason. The scientific method is one system. A jury trial is another system. These games are operative at all levels of society with varying degrees of formality. Often, the goals of these systems or games will be to produce a decision or "action items," to use corporate-speak.
Generally speaking, when the goal is to make a decision or advance knowledge, reason and logic should be highly valued. But the goal is not always to advance knowledge or make a decision. Sometimes, the main goal of conversation is socialization or entertainment. Sometimes the main goal is to defeat the opposing side by any means necessary. Sometimes the goal is to motivate specific, desired behavior, which is nearly the definition of propaganda.
Rhetoric can be employed in many situations for many reasons, even in an otherwise rationally-oriented setting. Used judiciously, fallacious reasoning and technically weak arguments can lubricate a discussion without getting in the way of truth. Plus, there are many situations where the whole situation is primarily subjective anyway, where there is no truth beyond persuasion. In that case, reason might just be getting in the way. For an example, consider this bit of rhetorical genius:
Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/882061157900718081][/url]
Have fun making a rational, orderly, reasoned argument that Kim Jong Un's aggression is a pathetic waste of time, and getting anyone to pay attention. Instead: North Korea has just launched another missile. Does this guy have anything better to do with his life? I lol'd.