Kindle Edition
Audiobook
Download to your Nook (eBook)
Download from Apple iTunes (eBook)
Download from Smashwords (eBook)
Online course at Humanist Learning Systems
Category:
Self-Help
Publisher: CreateSpace
ISBN-10: 1979091854
Type: Non-Fiction
Pages: 34
Copyright: Oct 23, 2017
ISBN-13: 9781979091855
Price: $2.99 (eBook)
In this book author and Humanist Jennifer Hancock discusses recent research on how ideas are formed and changed to help you understand why and how to yield to your opponent and how to turn the conversation around using Socratic questioning techniques to frame the underlying moral debate to your advantage.
We humans rarely agree. We argue and debate and nothing ever seems to be resolved. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could cut through the clutter and create consensus for your ideas and proposals? Of course it would. But to get there, you have to stop arguing and start asking questions. In this book author and Humanist Jennifer Hancock discusses recent research on how ideas are formed and changed to help you understand why and how to yield to your opponent and how to turn the conversation around using Socratic questioning techniques to frame the underlying moral debate to your advantage. If you want to learn how to win arguments by not arguing buy this book! This is the companion book to the online course: “How to Win Arguments Without Arguing: Socratic Jujitsu” created by Jennifer Hancock for Humanist Learning Systems. This book contains the edited transcripts of the online lessons compiled for easy home reference.
Excerpt
CHAPTER 3: YIELDING TO DISARM
Normally when an argument starts, our opponent says something we disagree with. We tell them we disagree and start to explain why our opponent is wrong, all while they are trying to tell us why we are wrong.
But what would happen if you didn’t argue?
The Framework of an Argument
An argument is made up of premises and a conclusion. A premise is an assertion of fact. If the premises are true and the logic is good, there is a good probability that our conclusion is good too.
As an example, let’s use an argument we know is false. All flowers are animals. all animals can jump. Therefore, all flowers can jump.
In this example, the premises are false but the logic is good. The conclusion is false even though the logic is good because the premises are false.
We can also have arguments where the initial premise is correct, and the conclusion is basically correct, but the second premise is faulty.
For example: A cat is an animal. All animals can jump. Therefore, all cats can jump. When considering logic, we need to understand, premises can be false and conclusions may not follow or be logical even though the conclusion is true.
Finally, their premises may be true but the logic may be bad. People who have their facts straight, don’t always make logical arguments. It is possible for premises to be true and the conclusion to not follow logically from the premises.
For a conclusion to be considered valid, the premises must be true and the logic must be good. This is why critical thinkers spend time learning about logical fallacies.
When we have an argument with someone, it’s usually because we don’t agree with their conclusion. There are several ways we can “argue” with them. We can argue that their premises aren’t true or that there is a problem with their logic. However, most arguments are almost always about whether the premises are true so that we can disregard the conclusion.
Arguing premises rarely works. In the case of divisive issues like abortion and climate change, opponents get stuck on questions of whether a fetus is a child or whether climate change is caused by humans. These arguments ultimately go nowhere because we are arguing premises and not conclusions. Arguing premises is also not very rational.
To win arguments without arguing, we are not going attack our opponent’s premises, instead is we are going to yield. We are going to accept their premises tentatively and conditionally, but not their conclusion. Even if we know their premises are false, we are going to accept them conditionally by saying, “Let’s assume this is true.”
|
