Persuasion as Proof

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Scottydamion
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 02:19 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;136042 wrote:
But, as you should know from being on this forum, there are people who claim to have thought this stuff through, and who do not share our beliefs on how to acquire reasonable beliefs. In fact, some of them seem not to be particularly fond of reasonable beliefs. These people also find lousy justification for all sorts of lousy beliefs. I needn't name those people for you, need I?


It is frustrating isn't it? To want to force my beliefs would be hypocritical, leaving me with persuasion as the only option. Some people do not care for reasoned argument, should I resort to emotional pleas? Should I persuade them using methods I feel are unsound, even if my reasons for holding the belief are?

Take animal rights or abortion for examples, there are people on both sides of each fence who justify their position with emotion. Logic seems cold to many people, thus making persuasion with it difficult...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 03:07 pm
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;136047 wrote:
It is frustrating isn't it? To want to force my beliefs would be hypocritical, leaving me with persuasion as the only option. Some people do not care for reasoned argument, should I resort to emotional pleas? Should I persuade them using methods I feel are unsound, even if my reasons for holding the belief are?

Take animal rights or abortion for examples, there are people on both sides of each fence who justify their position with emotion. Logic seems cold to many people, thus making persuasion with it difficult...


What is forcing your beliefs? And why would forcing your beliefs be hypocritical? Why is persuasion the only option to forcing your beliefs? If a person does not care for reasoned argument (as, apparently, some do not) then why would you argue with them in the first place? You don't have to deal with them unless you want to. And why would you want to deal with an unreasonable person. (Of course, it may be that some of them think they are being reasonable. It is that which can be frustrating). How does emotion justify any belief? I do not understand that.

Is using reasoned argument forcing your beliefs? Why?
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 03:21 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;136073 wrote:
What is forcing your beliefs? And why would forcing your beliefs be hypocritical? Why is persuasion the only option to forcing your beliefs? If a person does not care for reasoned argument (as, apparently, some do not) then why would you argue with them in the first place? You don't have to deal with them unless you want to. And why would you want to deal with an unreasonable person. (Of course, it may be that some of them think they are being reasonable. It is that which can be frustrating). How does emotion justify any belief? I do not understand that.

Is using reasoned argument forcing your beliefs? Why?


I think you are misunderstanding Scottydamion, as I do not believe that Scottydamion is equating "reasoned argument" with "force". But that is not what interests me. This is what does interest me:

kennethamy;136073 wrote:
... If a person does not care for reasoned argument (as, apparently, some do not) then why would you argue with them in the first place? You don't have to deal with them unless you want to. And why would you want to deal with an unreasonable person. ...


The above seems odd coming from you, as I have read threads (perhaps at another site, if it is not allowed to say such things of this one) in which you have been arguing with people who evidently do not care for reasoned argument, and prefer spouting gibberish. Of course, in some cases, you have been drawn into them, where the persons did not at first make it clear that that is what they were doing, yet you do continue the discussion with them sometimes. Perhaps, though, you are hoping for something that you do not expect to result from it, or there may be some other reason for this, as, indeed, it can be irritating for someone spouting gibberish to be left doing such a thing at a site that purports to be about intellectual discussion.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 03:39 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;136073 wrote:
What is forcing your beliefs? And why would forcing your beliefs be hypocritical? Why is persuasion the only option to forcing your beliefs? If a person does not care for reasoned argument (as, apparently, some do not) then why would you argue with them in the first place? You don't have to deal with them unless you want to. And why would you want to deal with an unreasonable person. (Of course, it may be that some of them think they are being reasonable. It is that which can be frustrating). How does emotion justify any belief? I do not understand that.

Is using reasoned argument forcing your beliefs? Why?


I suppose I mean forcing the issue, or if I were in a position of power, forcing my beliefs upon those I hold power over. In some cases I have no choice but to argue with unreasonable people. My parents are both Southern Baptists, and my dad used to be a music minister. They force the issue because they feel my position puts my immortal soul in danger. So how am I to respond? Forcing the issue from my side? Should I ignore attempts at debate concerning religion?

I do not think emotion justifies any belief, but I think people use it as justification consciously or subconsciously... why do fools fall in love?

I do not think reasoned argument is forcing my beliefs, but I also do not know how to stop my parents from forcing the issue as they do it to "help" me.

This is part of the problem with persuasion and proof. My parents feel I have been persuaded away from God, I feel I have found proof to not believe in God. How does one separate persuasion and proof?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 03:45 pm
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;136080 wrote:
I think you are misunderstanding Scottydamion, as I do not believe that Scottydamion is equating "reasoned argument" with "force". But that is not what interests me. This is what does interest me:



The above seems odd coming from you, as I have read threads (perhaps at another site, if it is not allowed to say such things of this one) in which you have been arguing with people who evidently do not care for reasoned argument, and prefer spouting gibberish. Of course, in some cases, you have been drawn into them, where the persons did not at first make it clear that that is what they were doing, yet you do continue the discussion with them sometimes. Perhaps, though, you are hoping for something that you do not expect to result from it, or there may be some other reason for this, as, indeed, it can be irritating for someone spouting gibberish to be left doing such a thing at a site that purports to be about intellectual discussion.


Hope springs eternal in the human breast. And, I sometimes fail to practice what I preach.

What you say is frustrating can be frustrating. Particularly on that site where gibberish is not merely tolerated, but is positively supported by the powers that be.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 02:01 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;130271 wrote:
For one instance, Anyway, this analogy recognizes that proof is on the same continuum as other forms of persuasion. Proof is not a kind of persuasion as you suggest. You also suggested that proof has no purpose but persuasion (something like, what good is proof unless it persuades). None of this is right, since it assimilates proof to persuasion.


I think the continuum model is not so bad, because the continuum is grounded by something as intensely persuasive as formal logic, the more persuasive as it becomes more formal. Tautologies are the max persuasion. Naked contradiction would be on the other end. A euclidean line that is cut at both ends, leaving a spectrum of certainty/faith..
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/15/2020 at 02:53:53