Thread: Argumentation Is Pointless

I view an argument as any attempt to convince someone of your opinion while they hold a differing one.

The issue is, while you may think you're doing it to convince someone of something, you're actually doing it to win and assert your dominance over someone.

Example A:

"I think you're wrong!"
"Yeah? Well I think you're wrong, dummy!"
etc.

This is not an argument.


Example B:

"I think you're wrong, here's why you should see things my way."
"Perhaps, but here's why YOU'RE wrong, and why you should see things MY way."
etc.

This is an argument, provided said reasons make sense, and are logical.

Originally Posted by Ezpata

"I think you're wrong, here's why you should see things my way."
"Perhaps, but here's why YOU'RE wrong, and why you should see things MY way."
etc.

This is an argument, provided said reasons make sense, and are logical.

So you do understand what an argument is.

Well what the heck

All intellectual growth is self-emergent, people cannot simply give up their cognitive matrix of reality and adapt someone else's because they couldn't figure out how to trump that person in a debate. They can merely learn and build upon their cognitive matrix in order to improve it. The greatest tool to learn is humility, which enables one to have a more open mind. The greatest obstacle to growth is conviction and presumption, assuming you are right and the other is wrong and that it's merely your job to show the other person that they're wrong.

Evolution has two sides, competition and cooperation. Competition necessitates cooperation as the small and simple must become large and complex in order to gain the advantage. While argument purely for the sake of dominance, or as Mark put it, the 4 year old's version of argument (though I find it strange how many 4 year olds troll these forums), gives the initial competitive edge, evolving your level of communication beyond mere domination enables greater cooperation, greater growth and complexity and overall a greater competitive edge.

But there's still game theory to keep in mind. There is no point in communicating cooperatively with those of unshakable conviction, as you'll find yourself simply agreeing with everything they say whether or not it computes with your own worldview and your cognitive matrix cannot improve. If someone cannot take an open minded stance with you, there's no point in taking an open minded stance with them. There is nothing to gain from admitting you're wrong to someone who has failed to convince you of anything.

Spoiler for more in depth:

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Yes, Galileo's argument with the Vatican over the heliocentric model was pointless. It was never about Earth's position in the solar system, Galileo just wanted to prove that he had a bigger penis than the Pope.

Try harder please.

Originally Posted by DuB

This is the most transparently and hilariously self-defeating argument ever. It's hard to even know how one would begin to take this seriously. Are we even meant to?

It was not Galileo trying to show dominance, it was the Church. I don't know what was going through Galileo's mind, but I know that I, myself, am far less likely to care whether or not I am right when I have observation on my side. It is when I take the observation and try to reach a conclusion that I am more likely to fight for my opinion. For instance in the Tickle your Amygdala thread, I had no reason to fight for the conclusions made by Neil Slade or others on Amygdala clicking, I had nothing invested in it, they weren't my claims. But I was a beneficiary of the experiment and felt compelled to explain my observation, so long as people would listen. However, in my Extra Dimensions thread I was taking an observation from an ineffable realm and trying to explain it without knowing if there even was proper vocabulary to explain it with and before even hearing about the book Flatland which I could have borrowed arguments from to make my claim much easier to explain. I became more invested in the argument because people were caught up attacking my words or clinging to conviction for the sake of it, but my words were just whatever I could come up with to explain my argument which was based on an observation. The observation that I encountered was objective (in a nonpartisan sense, as in anyone could have the same observation) but I had to come up with my own conclusions as to what I experienced and put them into words that ultimately fell short. Because I knew the heart of the argument was still valid, whether or not my conclusions were, it was mostly just a struggle to find the right words to explain it, but the reaction I met was, as Ezpata has said, an attempt to gain dominance, just as the reactions I quoted from this thread are.

While Dub's argument lacks substance and is clearly nothing more than attempt to show dominance with pure fallacy, Stormcrow's attempt at dominance is only revealed by his afterthought, "Try harder please," but his claim itself still has value.

As Mark noted when trying to compare your perspective on argument to a 4 year olds, there is a distinction, which is also hinted at by the quote in the OP about admitting your wrong for the sake of sustaining a marriage.

Originally Posted by Ezpata

Example A:

"I think you're wrong!"
"Yeah? Well I think you're wrong, dummy!"
etc.

This is not an argument.

Oh yes it is!

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Oh yes it is!

oh no it's not, dummy!

Originally Posted by Oneiro

Oh yes it is!

Oh no it isn't XP