We have all been arguing since we were able to grasp the concept of fighting for what you want. Some of us adapted good arguing skills while others are unfortunate and can never win an argument. Those who lose their arguments probably argue backwards. Arguing backwards is when someone thinks and argument is strong and believes the conclusion is true, which then leads people to believe the premises are true. In the book the example has to do with allergies and because the cats were around an outsider thought the subject was allergic to cats.
Most arguments happen because people do not understand the premises and go straight to the conclusion. I know from personal experience I have seen fights happen and I look at the conclusion and not the premises. Once I learn and understand the premises I have a whole new look and idea of a conclusion. People need to learn to know the facts before skipping to conclusions.
Definitely true, ever since I can remember, fights in my household have broken out. It is always about the most trivial things. I really think that most arguments are about the things we cannot understand. Conclusions are then made up and then general assumptions are made about the argument. Skipping to conclusions can cause some serious problems in the argument. I cannot come up with a specific example, but most conclusions are not made at the end of the argument. But nowhere does it say that an argument must follow this rule, but when applied to logic, this makes sense.
ReplyDelete