Man podnatorevshy run discussions, the dispute with an opponent always tries to defend a number of compulsory from his point of the provisions based on which it is already possible in the future to force the interlocutor to take the protected thesis. In this mode of argumentation much resemblance with proofs of deductive science. Identifying won in early discussions with the axioms of basic principle and the fact that the opposing party is unprofitable allow to expand the base of argument against her in the ensuing dispute, you can try to simulate the process of discussion within the limitations of for the deductive method.
Unfortunately, such a successful "simulation" can be only when the opponent initially elects a purely passive tactics, rather than attempting to impose in response to their own opinion on the issue under discussion. If, however, he is equally versed in the intricacies of verbal combat, be sure to try to defend well and comfortable for themselves starting positions of the dispute.
If the opponents are so intelligent that he immediately saw the unacceptability "Axiom system, taken into service by an adverse Party, the dispute is essentially the problem simply will not start: provided the opposition defended the final abstracts selected an initial set of regulations can not contradict each other, which renders meaningless the subsequent pure "deductive" reasoning. The dispute between the worthy rivals of each other only happens when they do not reject the threshold strange position of being unable to calculate conclusions from it in advance and build in interaction with the opposing party system of reasoning in the hope to prove the correctness of his viewpoint. Differently "Axiomatic model of substantive discussion does not look mozhet.Budet whether, nevertheless, the above procedure is really hard to satisfy canons of deductive evidence, or there will always be out of bounds for the axiomatic method?
Shows disputing parties need to defend the thesis of repetition of principles adopted is only a prerequisite for the subsequent discussion, helping only to become better acquainted with the original positions and to make sure that the elected "axiom system" really contradict each other. If the case this and be limited to, the dispute is actually not even begin. The initial conditional agreement with the "axioms" the other side it is only necessary to then put them into question by appealing to the reality, or, implicitly, to their own interests, giving them (it does not matter - consciously or unconsciously) in general and therefore corresponding to the same reality. The very essence of the debate requires a systematic move beyond formal representations on the subject dispute (and could it be otherwise, as long as necessary to deal simultaneously with two conflicting systems of axioms!). This procedure is "too meaningful "in order to allow modeling of the means of deductive inference. The latter is suitable when the sets and, therefore, challenged only one point of view.
Bychkov, SN Deductive thinking and ancient Greek polis
http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/Culture/Buchkov/Buch_DedM.php
0 comments:
Post a Comment