Rules for Rational Discussion & Critical Commentary
Professor Emswiler - Brightpoint College
Objectives
- Name, describe, illustrate and employ the rules of rational discussion.
- Name, describe, illustrate and employ the steps for effective critical commentary.
Damer's Rules of Rational Discussion
Stage One: Prepare One's Mind 1. The Fallibilism Principle: When alternative positions on any disputed issue are under review each participant in the discussion should acknowledge that possibly none of the positions presented is deserving of acceptance and that at best only one of them is true or the most defensible position. Therefore, it is possible that thorough examination of the issue will reveal that one’s initial position is a false or indefensible one. 2. The Truth-Seeking Principle: Each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth. Therefore, one should be willing to examine alternative positions seriously, look for insights in the positions of others, and allow other participants to present arguments for or raise objections to any position held with regard to any disputed issue. 3. The Clarity Principle: The formulation of all positions defenses and attacks should be free of any linguistic confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues. 4. The Burden of Proof Principle: The burden of proof for any position rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks the proponent should provide an argument for that position. 4. The Principle of Charity: If a participant’s argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be expressed in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the original intention of the arguer. If there is any question about that intention or about implicit parts of the argument the arguer should be given the benefit of any doubt in the reformulation.
- Fallibilism: Everyone's favorite three words: "I was wrong." (Reflect: Am I open to being wrong?)
- Truth-Seeking: Are you looking for victory or truth? (Reflect: Do I welcome surprises?)
- Burden of Proof: The one making the claim has to prove it. (Reflect: Do I offer enough evidence?)
- Principle of Charity: Help others express their best case. (Reflect: Am I building understanding?)
Stage Two: Expression of Reasoning div/ 6. The Relevance Principle: One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to set forth only reasons that are directly related to the merit of the position at issue. 7. The Acceptability Principle: One who presents an argument for or against the position should attempt to use reasons that are mutually acceptable to the participants (scholars) and that meet standard criteria of acceptability. 8. The Sufficiency Principle: The one who presents an argument for or against the position should attempt to provide reasons that are sufficient in number, kind and weight to support the acceptance of the conclusion 9. The Rebuttal Principle: One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or the position it supports and to the strongest argument on the other side of the issue. Ideally, good arguments are those in which the premises really do support the conclusion and bad arguments are those in which they do not.
- Clarity: Express arguments without confusion.
- Relevance: Use reasons directly related to the issue.
- Acceptability: Provide reasons acceptable to the audience.
- Sufficiency: Offer enough evidence to fully support claims.
- Rebuttal: Address serious challenges fairly and fully.
Stage Three: Endgame Damer’s rules for a good argument. It must be: a) “...structurally well-formed; b) the premises must be relevant; c) the premises must be acceptable; d) the premises must be sufficient e) there must be an effective rebuttal of challenges to the argument.
- Resolve: Reach an agreement when possible.
- Reconsider: Adjust your views if evidence demands it.
- Suspend Judgment: If evidence is insufficient, wait.
Dennett's Steps for Effective Critical Commentary
- Re-express your peer's position clearly, vividly, and fairly.
- List any points of agreement.
- State something you have learned from your peer.
- Only after steps 1-3, offer a critical objection or rebuttal.
