In chapter 7 I learned about raising objections. Raising objections is a way to show that an argument is bad. I also learned about Refuting an Argument. There are two ways you can refute an argument and that is directly or indirectly. The direct ways of refuting an argument is:
Show that at least one of the premises is dubious.
Show that the argument isn't valid or strong.
Show that the conclusion is false.
Refuting indirectly means that you can not find any one premise that is false, but you know there is something wrong with the premises. Refuting indirectly leads to reducing to the absurd. Epstein states that "to reduce to the absurd is to show that at least one of several claims is false or dubious, or collectively they are unacceptable, by drawing a false or unwanted conclusion from them. The book also talks about one form of reducing to the absurd which is refuting by analogy. That means vary only some of the premises while retaining the crucial ones to get an absurd conclusion.
Raising objections is a great topic. Before reading on objections, Objections to me were in a court setting, a place where the defendant would object to what the other sides were saying. When this happens, the judge will overrule what they have said and start with a new topic. In your blog, you state that the ways of refuting an argument is saying if its valid, strong, or that it’s dubious. Usually when people object or argue, it’s because they don’t believe what that person is trying to tell them. If you refute indirectly, then you’re saying something is wrong, but you can’t see where.
ReplyDelete