Improving reasoning and debating skills

[Gaze]

I'm curious about the methods used to develop or improve reasoning or debating skills. For example, I've found that discussing various topics on a forum like this has helped me exercise and sharpen my thinking, reasoning, and debating skills. I thought at first that I needed to take a class on logic. However, I realized that arguing about common, everyday topics and consider different alternatives is just as effective in develop reasoning skills. For me, as INFP, it's a great way to exercise Ne and develop Ti.

How about you?

 

[LucyJr]

I would recommend to anyone to study some basic logic. Sometimes people make so tiny and small mistakes that break done an entire big theory.
When you point it out to them, they won't like it, because they invested so much in their theory or proiect. And usually is just a tiny inconsistent piece that break a theory apart.
Even after you study logic you'll find yourself in odd situations when you under-cut logically yourself. So it's a process of learning, of sharpening logical thinking.

 

[sprinkles]

Experience, valuing the opponent, and more importantly being willing to learn from them when necessary.

Pay attention to what they do to your argument and how it holds up. Watch for valid points and concede them. If they claim a hole in your argument, give it due consideration because it might actually be there! If it's not, try to explain why it isn't. Don't just trudge on and ignore it because you're no longer debating or being rational if you do that, instead you're proselytizing.

 

[Tilheyra]

My interest in rhetoric and persuasion partially comes from my own trouble with verbally constructing arguments. I am terrible with pushing my points in the moment of arguing or advocating a point. I much prefer to write down my arguments as it is easier to think clearly when I am seeing what I am arguing, and it also allows me to erase and rewrite.

 

[muir]

I've learned a bunch of stuff from this forum

I see everyone and everything as a potential teacher

 

[The King]

I would recommend to anyone to study some basic logic. Sometimes people make so tiny and small mistakes that break done an entire big theory.
When you point it out to them, they won't like it, because they invested so much in their theory or proiect. And usually is just a tiny inconsistent piece that break a theory apart.
Even after you study logic you'll find yourself in odd situations when you under-cut logically yourself. So it's a process of learning, of sharpening logical thinking.

I've wanted to. Do tell, how do I begin?

 

[LucyJr]

I've wanted to. Do tell, how do I begin?

Start with the classics, Platon and Aristotle. Then go to Leibniz.
Do not study any modern logician, you need to go first with the fundamentals. Then you can go for the "modern" logic. Beware that most of the guys in this age are pretty stupid...

 

[Gaze]

Beware that most of the guys in this age are pretty stupid...

why?

 

[LucyJr]

why?

Because most of the modern logicians and philosophers dismiss old and orthododx logic.

 

[sprinkles]

Anyone who can read can read Plato and quote Heidegger. This doesn't make anybody smart or rational. Anyone can parrot based on authority.

If you don't critically analyze it, understand it, and know why it's good then you might as well not even bother in my opinion. If you're only quoting something because it fits your ideas, and you don't even actually get it, then you're just a bump.

Be your own philosopher.

 

[Gaze]

Anyone who can read can read Plato and quote Heidegger. This doesn't make anybody smart or rational. Anyone can parrot based on authority.

If you don't critically analyze it, understand it, and know why it's good then you might as well not even bother in my opinion. If you're only quoting something because it fits your ideas, and you don't even actually get it, then you're just a bump.

Be your own philosopher.

I've read Aristotle and briefly introduced to other traditional philosophers, and I find that it's easy to put them and their theories on a pedestal without questioning their reasoning. This is why I am not a fan of quoting theorists and philosophers too often. It tends to imply that we can't have our thoughts. It also tends to imply that reasoning which is not based on a highly respected philosophy is naturally weak because it may not be as sophisticated.

 

[Radiantshadow]

Find and befriend an INTP.

^.^

(I'm only somewhat joking.)

 

[LucyJr]

Anyone who can read can read Plato and quote Heidegger. This doesn't make anybody smart or rational. Anyone can parrot based on authority.

If you don't critically analyze it, understand it, and know why it's good then you might as well not even bother in my opinion. If you're only quoting something because it fits your ideas, and you don't even actually get it, then you're just a bump.
Be your own philosopher.

Interesting...
Just to make something clear, it would be good if people make a clear distinction between philosophy and logic. These are two completely different things.

If I quote Aristotle's philosophy because it fits my ideas, then that doesn't add to my theory anything special...it's just philosophy.

If I quote or use Aristotle's logic instead - which is not his private personal logic, it's a logic that is universal with its laws- then that would mean something. Because I'm not using his logic, I'm using just logic, the logic and its law as had always been, as it is, and as would have always been. The fact that Aristotle discover it doesn't make that logic worse or better.

The laws of logic are universal, independent of time, these law had not evolve or anything like that.

These law just are. 2 plus 2=4 is always the same result, independent of our brains, independent of matter, independent of this universe or any other universe. In any possible world, 2 plus 2 would have been the same result, which is always 4.

Basically, this is the natural and orthodox logic, this is what Aristotle argumented in his "Metaphysics" It shows that there are some laws of reason which transcend anything, which can not be contradicted.

In fact, Aristotle also proved that the invalidiation of any of these laws CAN NOT be made whitout the use of this VERY laws, thus the person who tries this ending up in contradicting herself.

 

[sprinkles]

Interesting...
Just to make something clear, it would be good if people make a clear distinction between philosophy and logic. These are two completely different things.

If I quote Aristotle's philosophy because it fits my ideas, then that doesn't add to my theory anything special...it's just philosophy.

If I quote or use Aristotle's logic instead - which is not his private personal logic, it's a logic that is universal with its laws- then that would mean something. Because I'm not using his logic, I'm using just logic, the logic and its law as had always been, as it is, and as would have always been. The fact that Aristotle discover it doesn't make that logic worse or better.

The laws of logic are universal, independent of time, these law had not evolve or anything like that.

These law just are. 2 plus 2=4 is always the same result, independent of our brains, independent of matter, independent of this universe or any other universe. In any possible world, 2 plus 2 would have been the same result, which is always 4.

Basically, this is the natural and orthodox logic, this is what Aristotle argumented in his "Metaphysics" It shows that there are some laws of reason which transcend anything, which can not be contradicted.

In fact, Aristotle also proved that the invalidiation of any of these laws CAN NOT be made whitout the use of this VERY laws, thus the person who tries this ending up in contradicting herself.

2+2 doesn't always = 4 in applied sciences.

If you take 2 liters of water and 2 liters of methanol and mix them together, you're not going to get exactly 4 liters of water/methanol mixture, due to hydrogen bonding.

2+2 gallons of fuel in a rocket does not proportionally generate 4 gallons worth of delta-v

In economics there's diminishing returns. 2 units of investment plus 2 more doesn't guarantee 4 proportional units of output.

But yes, certain mathematical axioms may be considered universal. They're also very mundane and fundamental. There's nothing special about 2+2=4 because 2+2 is actually another way of writing 4. That's what an equation is - the two forms of writing it are tautological to begin with. When you have a number of something, yes, you're also going to end up with the number of that thing which you have.

Basically it appears universal because it's so dead simple as to hardly be a thing at all. There's nothing metaphysical about it.

 

[Neurosis]

This post will be a bit divergent from original topic initially. The first part is more to do with the dialogue between LucyJr and Sprinkles, which I'll eventually try to tie into its relation to improving one's reasoning abilities.

Put simply: Aristotelian logic is outdated, and Plato is in in the same boat. Science has given us the means with which to utilize predictive models. Predictive models that tell us with greater accuracy than our own minds as to how the universe we live in operates. It's also demonstrated to us time and again, that the real world is not as realistic as one would think. This realization relegates Aristotelian logic to little more than a footnote when it comes to building our understanding of the world.

To clarify on what I mean by, 'the real world is not realistic'. Black holes are unexpected - yet real. The accelerated expansion of the universe is unexpected - yet real. Evolution is unexpected - yet real. All of these things seem far-fetched to the human mind. It's only when we suspend or stretch our notions of, 'realism' that we can understand these concepts. Through building models of reality using mathematics, we gain predictive power. Using the mathematical model of escape velocity, a French mathematician (whose name I forget) proposed that if an object contained enough mass within a small enough radius (density), then its escape velocity could exceed the speed of light. Later on, the Schwarzschild Radius was determined as a means of calculating this - an equation that allows us to calculate the radius at which any given amount of mass will possess an escape velocity greater than the speed of light.

So what's the point of telling you all this? It's simple. Being able to reason and debate comes from understanding. Understanding which starts in a place of humility. I think the first thing all people who would engage in debate should understand, is that the human brain is notoriously fallible and erroneous in its ability to interpret the world around us accurately. I'm aware that the knowledge of this somewhat undermines the goal of even trying to understand the world using your own brainpower in the first place, but that's kind of the point - improving your ability to reason is something that requires specific and targeted cognitive efforts. It demands that you assess and re-assess what you learn, by fact-checking it in other places, but also by finding ways to experimentally verify them - which is the hardest yet the most productive way of really learning.

Basic example: without using Google, can you [MENTION=1669]Framed[/MENTION], explain to me how you know the moon is definitely a sphere, and explain to me how I could discern this myself without having to look at it?

I ask this question to many people, and they simply can't figure out how to do it, and yet it's a very uncomplicated and really quite obvious answer. The problem is, people simply don't train their minds to think in this way. They already have the knowledge that the moon is a sphere - they don't feel the need to test it themselves.

 

[LucyJr]

2+2 doesn't always = 4 in applied sciences.

If you take 2 liters of water and 2 liters of methanol and mix them together, you're not going to get exactly 4 liters of water/methanol mixture, due to hydrogen bonding.

2+2 gallons of fuel in a rocket does not proportionally generate 4 gallons worth of delta-v

In economics there's diminishing returns. 2 units of investment plus 2 more doesn't guarantee 4 proportional units of output.

But yes, certain mathematical axioms may be considered universal. They're also very mundane and fundamental. There's nothing special about 2+2=4 because 2+2 is actually another way of writing 4. That's what an equation is - the two forms of writing it are tautological to begin with. When you have a number of something, yes, you're also going to end up with the number of that thing which you have.

Basically it appears universal because it's so dead simple as to hardly be a thing at all. There's nothing metaphysical about it.

Ok, so 2 plus 2 doesn't always equate 4 ? Ok then...

 

[LucyJr]

Put simply: Aristotelian logic is outdated, and Plato is in in the same boat. Science has given us the means with which to utilize predictive models. Predictive models that tell us with greater accuracy than our own minds as to how the universe we live in operates. It's also demonstrated to us time and again, that the real world is not as realistic as one would think. This realization relegates Aristotelian logic to little more than a footnote when it comes to building our understanding of the world.

This is completely false.

Aristotelian logic is not outdated, as it has no link to "sciecce logic". There are two completely different kind of logics, both useful in their own rights.

Moreover, science method is based on classical aristotelian logic. There are crucial and very important methaphisical assumptions that make possible the advances of science. Whithout those assumptions, science doesn't have any ground to even question why a rock would fall on the ground.

Also, wether you recognise it or not, you just used aristotelian logic to raise and argumentate all your points. You just need to observe your own post very careful and you'll see exactly that.

 

[sprinkles]

Ok, so 2 plus 2 doesn't always equate 4 ? Ok then...

My real life examples weren't enough for you?

I don't see the point of fiddling with numbers that aren't attached to anything. However I know that 2+2 doesn't get you to the moon; this does

 

[LucyJr]

My real life examples weren't enough for you?

I don't see the point of fiddling with numbers that aren't attached to anything. However I know that 2+2 doesn't get you to the moon; this does

Your examples were completely irelevant... If I would say I have 5 fingers plus 5 nails, and then I would drag the conclusion that it doesn't equate 10 fingers or 10 nail, that would describe your "examples".

 

[sprinkles]

This is completely false.

Aristotelian logic is not outdated, as it has no link to "sciecce logic". There are two completely different kind of logics, both useful in their own rights.

Moreover, science method is based on classical aristotelian logic. There are crucial and very important methaphisical assumptions that make possible the advances of science. Whithout those assumptions, science doesn't have any ground to even question why a rock would fall on the ground.

Also, wether you recognise it or not, you just used aristotelian logic to raise and argumentate all your points. You just need to observe your own post very careful and you'll see exactly that.

Yes logical calculus is useful.

The idea that 2+2 is metaphysical is not. The metaphysical position is irrelevant to applied function.

Also Aristotle was WAY off on physics so his logic did nothing for him there. He didn't believe vacuum was possible, and proposed that elements move because they want to be in their 'natural place' e.g. smoke rises because it's mostly made of air so it wants to rise into the air to be with its element.

If it's not applied for anything except using logic to argue about itself, then it's useless.