Types of tricks in the dispute. for persuasion: the task of the dispute may be to convince the opponent
In a dispute, it is necessary to be extremely honest, truthful, but often these requirements are not met. It is associated with the possibility of being mistaken, making mistakes, and sometimes with a conscious desire to confuse an opponent or partner with the help of such arguments and arguments. To prove the truth of the thesis, arguments are given, the most weighty are the arguments based on statistical data, on examples from life, as well as quotations from the works of famous writers and poets. When arguing, it is necessary to distinguish between the concept of fact or opinion. A fact is a really occurring event that actually happened. Opinion is a judgment, often based on subjective assessments, it can be biased, biased, erroneous. Therefore, the most weighty evidence is facts. Opinions must be treated critically, taking into account both historical and specific conditions. It is very important, during the dispute, to take into account the emotional state, their attitude to the subject of speech. The art of argumentation consists not only in the truth of one's judgments, but also in the ability to refute the opponent's point of view, to expose his incorrect judgments. To conduct a dispute, it is necessary to strictly observe the laws of logic, which impose certain requirements in relation to the thesis of proof. There must be a logical certainty of the thesis; in the process of a dispute, you should not replace the thesis with another one. Proof and refutation in a dispute perform different functions, proof requires a positive role of substantiating an idea, and a critical one for refutation. The refutation is carried out in three ways: the thesis is refuted, the arguments are criticized, the demonstration is shown to be inconsistent, that is, those forms and methods of proof that the opponent uses. The most effective is the refutation of the thesis; for this, real facts, events, statistical data from eyewitness accounts, as well as the results of experimental studies are given. Less effective is the refutation of the arguments, it is necessary to show their inconsistency. At the same time, the use of humor, irony, sarcasm is considered an effective means. Often such a technique as a return blow or a boomerang technique is also used, a variation is the reception of picking up a cue, intercepting the initiative from an opponent, attacking him with questions, as well as psychological arguments, such as an argument to the personal qualities of a person, an argument to the public. Reference to authorities, to the statements or actions of a person who enjoys influence.
A form of hidden struggle in a dispute are tricks, they are very different. Tricks in a dispute are tactics and techniques, the purpose of which is to make it difficult for the opponent to justify his ideas. Possessing tricks, a person can easily win in any dispute. Tricks are divided into two types: acceptable and unacceptable. Permissible tricks are used when we see that the opponent uses impermissible methods in a dispute, in this case it is necessary to create a kind of trap in the dispute, into which this dishonest person will fall. The tricks of “ignoring the argument” are used when they pretend that the opponent has no strong argument in the dispute or consider that this argument is not valid. Acceptable is the ploy "postponing the objection" - this ploy is used in order to collect one's thoughts. "Excessive clarification" - clarification of the fact, from generalization to specifics. Arguments that violate the rules of polemics are considered unacceptable - leaving the dispute, disrupting the dispute, appealing to personal qualities, reading in the hearts. The exit from the dispute occurs when one of the opponents is unable to maintain the dispute. Disruption of the dispute occurs when the opponent seeks to interrupt the opponent, shows unwillingness to listen to his arguments. Reading in the hearts is associated with attributing to the opponent side motives for arguing. Argument to the policeman - this trick is used to suppress the enemy in the event that the thesis or argument put forward by the opponent is declared dangerous for society and the state. Leaving aside - when the subject of discussion is imposed on the opponent. Stick arguments - its essence is that the opponent must accept this argument out of fear of something unpleasant and dangerous, as a rule, it is used with a clear preponderance of forces and in the absence of legal guarantees. Of particular difficulty are the psychological tricks associated with quick speech, self-confident tone. Oiling up an argument or flattery. Bet on false shame. Link to your age, education, position. Sticking labels. In a dispute with a woman, references to the imperfection of female logic are used. The desire to bring the enemy off balance. Shooting beautiful phrases. Discrediting, undermining the authority of one's opponent.
In order to neutralize tricks, you need to know them well, be very attentive to your interlocutor, in order to be able to catch these tricks in a dispute, to have quick thinking and instant reaction. In disputes, many different questions are used, the ability to ask questions is an important sign of the mind and insight of a person. Questions can be clarifying when we want to find out the truth or falsity of a judgment. Also, questions can be explanatory, they arise due to inaccurate wording or incomprehension of the audience. Questions can be additional, go beyond the content of the topic under discussion or the problem. In addition to questions on content, there are questions on form. Questions are divided into two types: complex and simple. Simple questions are asked about only one problem and require a one-word answer. Difficult questions include multiple question words. By the nature of the questions are divided into: neutral, benevolent and unfavorable, provocative. The nature of the question can be recognized by the tone of the question. In order to properly respond to it.
From lectures!
Polemic methods.
Humor, irony, sarcasm increase the emotional impact on the listeners, help to defuse a tense situation. An ironic remark can confuse an opponent.
The boomerang technique (“beat the enemy with his own weapon”) lies in the fact that the thesis or argument is turned against the one who expressed it.
“Why, really,” Chichikov thought to himself, “does he take me for a fool, or something?” and then added aloud:
- It’s strange to me, really: it seems that some kind of theatrical performance or a comedy is going on between us, otherwise I can’t explain it to myself ... You seem to be a rather smart person, you have knowledge of education. After all, the subject is just fu-fu. What is he worth? Who needs?
- Yes, here you are buying, so you need it.
Here Chichikov bit his lip and could not find anything to answer.
(N.V. Gogol. "Dead Souls")
Reduction to absurdity - the falsity of the thesis is demonstrated, since the consequences arising from it contradict reality.
The famous Russian lawyer F.N. Plevako defended an old woman who stole a tin teapot worth 50 kopecks. The prosecutor's thesis was this: private property is sacred; if people are allowed to encroach on it, the country will perish. F. N. Plevako spoke as follows:
“Russia had to endure many troubles and trials during its more than a thousand-year existence. Pechenegs tormented her, Polovtsy, Tatars, Poles. Twelve languages fell upon her, they took Moscow. Russia endured everything, overcame everything, only grew stronger and grew from trials. But now, now... an old woman has stolen an old teapot worth 50 kopecks. Russia, of course, will not withstand this, it will perish irrevocably from this.
The verdict of the court was acquittal.
Attack with questions - in a dispute it is important to ask questions, answering is always more difficult than asking. The purpose of this technique is to seize the initiative, to make the position of the opponent difficult.
But let's assume you're right. Let's say that I treacherously take you at your word in order to betray the police. All arrested and then judged. But will it be worse for you in court and in prison than here? And if they send you to a settlement and even hard labor, is that any worse than sitting in this wing? I suppose it's no worse ... What is there to be afraid of?
Apparently, these words had an effect on Ivan Demyanovich. He meekly sat down.
(A.P. Chekhov. "Ward No. 6")
An argument to a person - instead of substantiating the thesis, they try to rely on the feelings and moods of the listeners, they begin to evaluate not the actions of a person, but his merits and demerits.
“When the assistant prosecutor managed to prove that the defendant is guilty and does not deserve leniency, when he understood, convinced and said:“ I finished, ”the defender got up. Everyone pricked up their ears. Silence reigned. The lawyer spoke, and... let the nervous... public dance!...
- We are people, gentlemen of the jury, and we will judge like human beings! – said, among other things, the defender. “Before appearing before you, this man suffered through six months of pre-trial detention. For six months the wife was deprived of her beloved husband, the eyes of the children did not dry up from tears at the thought that there was no dear father near them! Oh, if you would look at these children! They are hungry because there is no one to feed them, they cry because they are deeply unhappy ... But look! They stretch out their hands to you, asking everything to return their father to them! ..
The defender talked and talked ... He passed the facts, but pressed more on psychology.
(A.P. Chekhov. “A case from judicial practice”).
Tricks in the dispute
Chapter 13
What is a trick. Pulling an objection. Shock. Development of weak points of the opponent's argument. Tricks in response to the "malicious denial" of the arguments.
1. A trick in an argument is any technique by which they want to facilitate an argument for themselves or make an argument more difficult for an opponent. There are many such techniques, the most diverse in nature. Some of them, which are used to facilitate the dispute to themselves, are permissible. Others are unacceptable and often downright dishonest. To list all the tricks, or at least classify them accurately, is currently impossible. We consider it necessary, however, to describe some of the most important and most frequently encountered in order to help recognize them and take protective measures.
2. First, let's touch on some obviously permissible methods. Such tricks include (most often in an oral dispute) delaying an objection. Sometimes it happens that the opponent has given us an argument to which we cannot immediately find an objection. It just "doesn't come to mind", and that's all. In such cases, they try to “put off the objection” as imperceptibly as possible for the opponent, for example, they raise questions in connection with the argument given, as if to clarify it or to inform it in general, although they do not need either; they begin the answer from afar, with something related to the given question, but not directly connected with it, etc., etc. At this very time the thought is at work and often the desired objection appears, to which they now pass. You have to be able to do it smartly and imperceptibly. If the enemy notices what the matter is, he will in every possible way interfere with the trick.
3. This trick in its purest form is quite permissible and often necessary. The mental mechanism of a person is a very capricious mechanism. Sometimes, suddenly, a thought in an argument refuses to work for a moment at the most ordinary or even absurd objection. The person is lost. This happens especially often with people who are nervous or shy, under the influence of the most unexpected reasons - for example, sometimes even under the influence of a suddenly flashed thought: “what if I don’t find an answer” (self-hypnosis). This phenomenon reaches its highest degree in the so-called "shock". The arguing suddenly loses all the baggage of thoughts on this issue. "The head is empty." All knowledge, all income, all objections seem to have “flew out of my head”. (49:) Man is completely helpless. Such a "shock" occurs most often when a person is very worried or tired. In such cases, the only "salvation" is the trick we are analyzing. You must try not to betray your condition, not to look confused, not to lower or weaken your voice, speak firmly, and skillfully delay the objection until you recover. Otherwise, both the opponent and the listeners (mostly judging the course of the dispute “by appearances”) will think that we are “broken”, no matter how absurd the argument under which this unpleasant story happened to us.
Often resorted to "postponing the objection" in cases where, although the argument of the opponent seems to be correct, it is still possible that we are subject to some illusion or error in such an assessment. Caution says not to agree with him too easily; In such cases, they very often resort to other tricks that are no longer permissible, for example, they evade an objection to it and hush it up, “bypass” it; or they simply transfer the dispute to another topic, etc. etc.
4. That technique is also quite permissible (it is even difficult to call it a “trick”) when, seeing that the enemy is embarrassed at some argument, or becomes especially excited, or tries to “escape” from the answer, we pay special attention to this argument and we begin to “press” on it. Whatever the dispute, one should always vigilantly monitor the weak points in the opponent’s argument and, having found such a point, “work it out” to the end, without “letting go” of the opponent, until all the weakness of this point has been clarified and emphasized. "Releasing" the enemy in such cases is possible only when the enemy, obviously, has a shock or the like. or out of generosity, out of the well-known "chivalry in a dispute," if he got into a particularly ridiculous "problem." Meanwhile, the ability to exploit the enemy's weak points is quite rare. Those who are interested in the art of arguing often observe with pity how the arguing party, due to his complete inability to navigate the arguing or for other reasons, loses his advantage over the opponent.
5. Some tricks are also quite permissible, with which they respond to dishonest tricks of the enemy. Sometimes you can't protect yourself without it. For example, in a dispute you need to prove some important idea. But the opponent felt that if you prove it, you will prove the thesis, and then his case is lost. To prevent you from proving this idea, he resorts to a dishonest trick: whatever argument you give in favor of it, he declares it unproven. You will say: "all people are mortal", - he answers: this has not yet been proven. You will say: “Do you yourself exist or not?” He answers: maybe I exist, but maybe it's an illusion. What to do with such a person? With such a "malicious denial" of the arguments, it remains either to drop the argument or, if this is inconvenient, to resort to a trick. Two "defensive tricks" are most characteristic: a) it is necessary to "carry out" arguments in favor of the thought being proved so that the opponent does not notice that they are intended for this purpose. Then he will not "maliciously persist" and can accept them. When we have drawn all of them into a scatter, then it remains only to connect them together - and the idea is proven. The enemy is trapped. In order to successfully carry out this trick, very great skill is often needed, the ability to "master the dispute", the ability to lead it according to a certain plan, which is rare in our time. It's just another trick. b) Noticing that the opponent maliciously (50:) denies each of our arguments in favor of the thought being proved, and we need to carry out some argument, we set a trap. We are silent about our argument, but instead we take a thought that contradicts it and pretend that we want to use it as an argument. If the adversary has "set it up" to deny all our arguments, then he can, without thinking carefully, pounce on her and reject her. This is where the trap over him will slam shut. By rejecting the thought that contradicted our argument, he thereby accepted our argument, which we wanted to carry out. For example, I need to carry out the argument “some people are vicious by nature”, but my opponent has clearly taken up a malicious denial and will not let any argument pass for nothing. Then I pretend that I want to put forward, as an argument, a contradictory thought: “after all, you won’t deny,” I say, “that by nature every person is good and blameless, and vice is acquired from education, from the environment, etc. .". If the enemy does not figure out the traps, he will apply his tactics here too and declare that this is obviously a false idea. “Undoubtedly, there are people vicious by nature” - sometimes even evidence will be given. This is just what we need. The argument carried out, the trap slammed shut.
Chapter 14
Wrong exit from the dispute. Disruption of the dispute. Argument "to the policeman". Stick arguments.
1. There are countless unacceptable tricks. Some are very rough, some are very thin. The most crude tricks of a "mechanical" nature. This character often has the wrong "way out of the dispute." Sometimes you have to “drop the argument”, because, for example, the opponent indulges in personalities, allows himself rude expressions, etc. This, of course, will be the correct way out of the dispute, for serious reasons. But it also happens that a disputant has a bad time in a dispute because the opponent is stronger than him, either in general or in this matter. He feels that the dispute is beyond his strength, and tries in every possible way to “slip away from the dispute”, “put out the dispute”, “finish the dispute”. They are not shy about means here and often resort to the crudest mechanical tricks.
2. The rudest of them and the most "mechanical" - do not let the enemy speak. The disputant constantly interrupts the opponent, tries to shout down, or simply defiantly shows that he does not want to listen to him; covers his ears, hums, whistles, etc. etc. In a dispute in front of listeners, listeners sometimes play such a role, seeing that their like-minded person is having a bad time: there is a chorus (51:) of approval or disapproval, and a roar, and cackling, and stamping of feet, and breaking tables and chairs, and a demonstrative exit from rooms - all according to the culture of the mores of the listeners. It is, of course, impossible to argue under such conditions. This is called (if successful) "breaking the argument".
If the disputant is impudent enough, he may, after “arguing” with you in this way and without letting you say a word, declare: “You cannot be argued with, because you do not give a new answer to questions,” or even: “because you positively do not give opportunity to speak." Sometimes such a gentleman, having got into trouble, will seize on the word “I don’t understand”, like the sophist Callicles in the Platonic dialogue “Gorgias”. Whatever Socrates tells him - one answer is “I don’t understand.” "I don't understand your cleverness, Socrates." "I don't know what you're talking about," etc. etc. So Callicles would have gotten out of the dispute if his teacher, Gorgias, had not ordered him to continue. “No, no, Callicles, answer for us too, so that the study is completed” (Gorgia Ch97 A.V.). Sometimes all this is done "thinner". You have made a strong but complex argument, against which the opponent cannot object: he then says with irony: “I'm sorry, but I can't argue with you anymore. Such arguments are beyond my understanding. They are too learned for me,” etc. etc.
After this, you can’t force another stubborn person to continue the argument: you can’t grab his leg to keep him. Another can be kept "in a dispute" by declaring that if he did not understand the argument, then the fault lies in our inability to express it clearly, and not in his mind, etc.
Unfortunately, in a cruder or more subtle form, "dispute stifling" and "argument disruption" are not very rare. To illustrate this technique - and also to illustrate another "natural trick", namely the "chorus" of half-listeners and half-participants in the dispute, in every possible way praising the arguments of one side and maliciously condemning the arguments of the other side - I will cite a witty example of a dispute from Molière's Critique of the School of Women.
Lysis (opponent of "Chevalier" Dorant). Finally, the name itself: "dramatic work" comes from one Greek word, which means: "to act" and is given in order to show that the very essence of this work consists in action. In the comedy under consideration, there is no action at all. All of it consists in the stories of Agnes or Horace.
Marquis. Oh! Oh! Chevalier.
Klymene. Here's a witty remark! This is called looking into the essence of things.
Lysis. What could be less witty, or rather more base, than some expressions of this comedy, which everyone laughs at - especially the word about the birth of children from the ear?
Klymene. Perfect.
Eliza. Oh!
Lysis. And the scene with the servant and maid in the house? Isn't it annoyingly long? Isn't she completely unbearable?
Marquis. It's right.
Klymene. Certainly correct.
Eliza. He is right.
Lysis. Is it not too easy for Arnolf to give his money to Horace? And besides, he is a funny face in the play. Should he be forced to perform the act of a noble man?
Marquis. Wonderful. This comment is great too.
Klymene. Amazing remark!
Eliza. Amazing!
Lysis. Arnolf's sermon and his maxims - aren't they funny? And do they not even shock our sense of reverence for the sacraments?
Marquis. Quite right.
Klymene. Very well said.
Eliza. It's better not to say anything.
Lysis. And, finally, this Monsieur Delyasouche is presented to us as an intelligent person, in so many places in the play it seems so serious? Doesn't he descend to something overly comical and overly exaggerated in the fifth act, when he expresses the ardor of his love to Agnes with strange rolling eyes, funny sighs, tears that everyone laughs at.
Marquis. Parbleu! Wonderful.
Clymen. Fabulous!
Eliza. Vivat, Monsieur Lysidas!
Lysis. I don't want to get bored, so I omit a thousand other remarks.
Marquis. Parbleu! Chevalier. Well done to you.
Dorant. Let's see.
Marquis. You found an opponent stronger than you, honestly.
Dorant. May be.
Marquis. Answer, answer, answer, answer!
Dorant. With pleasure. He…
Marquis. Answer me, please.
Dorant. Let me answer. If a…
Marquis. Parbleu! I don't believe you answered.
Dorant. Yes, if you keep talking.
Klymene. Please listen to his arguments.
Dorant. First, it is not true that the entire play consists of stories alone. There's a lot of action going on on stage. The very stories in it are actions, as the plot requires: they are innocently transferred to the interested person, thanks to this, he gets into an awkward position and after each story takes all possible measures to avoid the misfortune he fears.
Urania. And I find that the beauty of the "School for Women" story lies precisely in these constant gullible stories. It seems to me rather amusing that Arnolf, a clever man, is constantly informed about everything by a naive, simple-hearted girl, his beloved, and a frivolous youth, his rival; meanwhile, in spite of this, he cannot avoid what is happening to him.
Marquis. Rubbish, rubbish!
Klymene. Weak answer!
Eliza. Bad arguments.
Dorant. As for the "children from the ear", the point is that Arnolf says them. The author inserted these words not because he himself wanted to say a witticism, but simply as a thing that characterizes Arnolf. They portray his eccentricity all the more because Arnolf talks about this trivial stupidity said by Agnes as something surprisingly good; they give him untold pleasure.
Marquis. Bad answer!
Klymene. Unsatisfactory answer.
Eliza. It's the same as saying nothing.
Dorant. And as for the money that Arnolf gives so easily, he has a letter from his best friend - sufficient security. Then it is not at all incompatible that a person is ridiculous in one, noble in another. As for the scene with the servants, which some found long and cold, it obviously has its own meaning. Arnolf everywhere suffers punishment (53:) through the very thing on which he built his precautions, as on an unshakable basis: the innocent innocence of Agnes strikes him during the journey; the innocence of the servants keeps them at the door for a long time upon their return.
Marquis. Pointless arguments.
Klymene. These are all empty excuses.
Eliza. Arguments that inspire pity.
Finally, the marquis definitively breaks the dispute. After one argument from Dorant, he states:
Marquis. Honestly, Chevalier, you'll do better if you keep quiet.
Dorant. Let it be. But in the end, if we observe ourselves while we are in love...
Marquis. But I don't want to listen to you.
Dorant. Listen to me. Is it in the heat of passion...
Marquis.(sings).
Marquis. How!
Marquis. La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la.
Dorant. I don't know if it's possible...
Marquis. La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la.
Urania. I think that…
Marquis. La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la.
The dispute ends ... When the desire is expressed that the dispute be recorded in the form of a small comedy, the Marquis declares to Dorant:
Marquis. Parbleu! You will play a disadvantageous role in this comedy, Chevalier.
3. Another but more “serious” mechanical trick to put an end to an unfavorable dispute is the “call” or “argument to the policeman”.
First, a person argues honor with honor, argues over whether the thesis is true or false. But the dispute is played out not in his favor - and he turns to those in power, pointing out the danger of the thesis for the state or society, etc. And then some kind of "authority" comes and clamps our opponent's mouth, which was required to be proved. The dispute ended and the "victory" is theirs.
4. But the "call to the policeman" is only intended to end the dispute. Many are not satisfied with this, but use similar means to "convince" the enemy, i.e. rather, to force him, at least in words, to agree with us. Then such arguments are called "stick arguments". Of course, in our time, “stick arguments” are also used in the literal sense of the word. Violence of all kinds very often "convinces" many and resolves (54:) disputes, at least for a time. But such cane arguments are not included in the scope of consideration by logic, even if it is applied. Here, a rather ugly trick is called a stick argument, consisting in the fact that they bring such an argument, which the opponent, according to the sophist, must accept for fear of something unpleasant, often dangerous, or to which he cannot correctly answer for the same reason and must or keep silent, or come up with some "workarounds". This is, in essence, robbery in a dispute. Even, perhaps, in one respect, even worse. The robber openly offers a dilemma: "trick or treat." The sophist presents in a covert and innocent way the dilemma of "accept the argument or suffer trouble"; "Don't mind or get hurt."
5. Such arguments abound at all times, among all peoples, under all regimes; in public, public and private life. During the time of the Inquisition, such disputes were possible, for example: a freethinker declares that "the earth revolves around the sun"; the adversary objects: “Here it is written in the psalms: You set the earth on solid foundations, it will not shake forever and ever.” “What do you think,” he asks pointedly, “maybe Holy Scripture is wrong or not?” The freethinker remembers the Inquisition and ceases to object. For greater security, he usually even “convinces himself”, even sometimes touchingly thanks “for teaching”. For a "strong", "sticky argument", like the Inquisition standing behind your back, is naturally irresistible and "convincing" for the majority of weak mortals.
In our times, thank God, there is no inquisition, but there are many other forms of argument with a stick. An example from recent life is a missionary's interview with the Old Believers. The Old Believer furiously proves that the missionary and his church are heretics. The resourceful "missionary" poses the question: "That's how! Does this mean that our Sovereign Emperor is a heretic? Before the Old Believer flashed - (in the imagination, and maybe in reality) the familiar faces of the Algvasils, and remembered "places not so remote." “His heart is troubled and his strength forsake him” and “it was like a man who did not hear and was not in his mouth reproof.” The authorities are sometimes very successful in persuading their subordinates. “People of other beliefs” “do not suit” him, and at the house of the convinced Vasya and Vanya they squeak, they ask for food and drink. The arguments of the authorities are often incomparably stronger than Ciceron's eloquence.
Chapter 15
Reading in the hearts. Positive and negative form of it. Insinuations. A "slave" trick in the absence of freedom of speech.
1. Various modifications of "arguments to the policeman" and "arguments with a stick" are countless. At least in the old logics of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries there are sometimes quite long lists of them, but not exhaustive of the material. From the lists and descriptions it is clear that all of them are found in our time. Truly, only the leaves change, but the tree with its branches remains the same.
2. The most "favorite" modifications and complications include, first of all, many cases of "reading in the hearts." This trick is that the sophist does not so much parse your words as the secret motives that made you say them. Sometimes even he is only limited to this. Enough! - Not in the form of a “stick argument”, this trick is very common and is generally used to “squeeze the mouth” of the enemy. For example, the interlocutor tells you in a dispute: “You say this not because you yourself are convinced of this, but out of perseverance”, “just to argue”. “You yourself think the same, only you don’t want to admit your mistake.” "You speak out of envy of him." "From class interests." “How much did they give you to support this opinion?” “You say this out of Party discipline,” etc., etc., etc. What is the answer to such "reading in the hearts"? It “shocks the mouth” of many, because it is usually impossible to refute such an accusation, just as it is impossible to prove it. Others are able to "cut off" such an opponent, for example, deftly and sharply emphasizing the nature of his trick. But this trick acquires real formidable power in connection with the argument with a stick. For example, if we prove the harmfulness of some government measure, the opponent writes: “The reason for such an attack on the measure is clear: this is a desire to undermine the prestige of the authorities. The more disruption, the more desirable it is for such servants of the revolution (or counter-revolution),” etc. Or: "these words are a clear call for an armed uprising", etc.
Of course, such accusations, if they are justified, may be justified in this case, and the accuser does a very useful job, drawing attention to known facts. Sometimes it's a civic duty. But you can't call it a dispute; and this should not be added to the dispute. An argument is a struggle between two thoughts, (56:) and not thoughts and clubs. Here it is necessary to protest in every possible way and in every possible way against the admixture of such methods to the dispute. Not all verbal combat is an argument.
3. Sometimes "reading in the hearts" takes a different form: it looks for the motive for which a person does not say something or does not write. Undoubtedly, he does not do this for such and such or such a motive (for example, "seditious"). For example, why didn't he express "patriotic enthusiasm" when talking about such and such an event? Clearly, he does not sympathize with him. Thus, for a skillful lover of "reading in the hearts" it is possible, if desired, to find everywhere some kind of "sedition", etc., both in some words of the enemy, and sometimes in his silence.
4. Insinuation should also be included in the same category of tricks of the dispute. A person seeks to undermine in listeners or readers the confidence in his opponent, and, consequently, in his arguments, and for this purpose he uses insidious irresponsible hints. Unfortunately, this trick is very much in use, and even other very respectable figures do not disdain it. Here is a characteristic excerpt from an article by one, of course, a conscientious author who fell victim to such a trick:
“My article on land management, dry, calm and business-like, overflowing with digital calculations, deprived Mr. H. of peace of mind. His answer is not an argument on the merits, not a refutation of my arguments, but a complete political insinuation, a desire to kill me with political defamation. In many variations, Mr. Kh. keeps repeating one thing all the time: A. “is a lawyer for land management”, sings “praises to the land management department”, “has tied his boat to the land management steamer”, and only “makes his voyage with an air of complete independence”, etc. ., etc.
“Everywhere, as you can see, Mr. H. maintains a tone of insinuation. Nowhere does he dare to directly and honestly accuse me of having entered the service of the land management department, working with a “state pen”. No, Mr. H. only insinuates: “he tied his boat to a land surveying steamer” and “willy-nilly he has to participate in all its evolutions; - even when the smoke of this ship directly eats the eyes, when any other would hasten to get off to the side. G. H. probably knows his readers well, thinking that these insinuations are enough for them. But I have the right to demand a direct answer from Mr. Kh., provide evidence of my dependence on the land management department. I affirm that my pen is no less independent than yours. But Mr. Kh., like all insinuators, is prudent and, of course, will slip into some crack, declaring that he had in mind not official, not factual, but some kind of ideological, moral dependence ”...
5. Where rude arguments with a stick reign, where freedom of speech is constrained by violence, there is often developed a special opposite, also rather ugly trick. A man has nothing to say in response to the reasonable argument of the enemy; however, he pretends that he could say a lot in response, but ... "Our adversary knows very well why we cannot object to him in these pages. Our struggle is unequal. A small honor in defeating the bound, ”etc. The reader's sympathy for the "victim" and indignation against the "scoundrel" who takes advantage of her defenselessness are almost certain. Many empty heads have used this technique, surrounding themselves with an undeserved halo of the mind, which is "not allowed to unfold." Thus, any violence against freedom of speech corrupts people - both the oppressors and the oppressed.
6. The “false retraction of an argument” is also quite common. The opponent's argument is crushing, or there is no answer to it. Then they rush to replace: (57:) "this is not relevant", i.e. withdraw the argument. A trick known since ancient times. In the comedy of Aristophanes "Clouds" we read a dispute with his son:
Fidia. Look at the roosters and other animals, how they fight with their fathers. And the difference between us and them is not only that they do not issue written laws.
Strepsiad. Hm! If you want to follow the example of roosters, why don't you eat manure and sleep on the hearth?
Fidia. That, my dear, is completely beside the point, as Socrates would have agreed.
Chapter 16
Bringing the enemy "off balance". Relying on slow thinking and gullibility. Distraction and misleading.
1. Much more interesting are those tricks that can be called psychological. They are based on the knowledge of some properties of the human soul, and some of our weaknesses.
The state of mind during an oral dispute has a huge impact on the conduct of the dispute. When we are "in shock", i.e. we are seized by a light, pleasant excitement, in which thought, memory, imagination work especially clearly and vividly, we argue better than usual. If we are very excited about something, embarrassed, confused, "hot", if our attention is distracted by something, we argue and think worse than usual, or even quite badly. (Of course, other things being equal). From this arises a series of psychological tricks designed to unbalance us, to weaken and upset the work of our thought.
2. There are many different techniques for this. The crudest and most common trick is to irritate the enemy and piss him off. For this, rude antics, “personalities”, insults, mockery, mockery, obviously unfair, outrageous accusations, etc. are used. If the enemy "boiled" - the case is won. He lost many chances in the dispute. Some skillfully try to “turn it up” to the desired degree. I saw a trick: with injustice and ridicule, the sophist unbalanced his youthful adversary. He began to get excited. Then the sophist took on an air of unspeakable good nature and a patronizing tone: “Well, Jupiter! You're angry, so you're wrong." Well, what are you, father! It's worth getting so excited! Calm down, calm down! What (58:) fever are you, etc. So after all, he brought the youngster to white heat! His hands are trembling with excitement and indignation. Throws himself blindly in a dispute, anywhere. I stopped thinking at all and, of course, “failed”. But they also use various other methods to “unbalance”. Another deliberately begins to mock at your "holy of holies." In person, he does not start, no! But a careless idealist can be "inflated" to the last limit. If the dispute is very important, in front of the listeners, responsible, then, they say, others even resort to the "artists' trick." Some artists, for example, singers, in order to “cut off” their rival, before his performance tell him some extremely unpleasant news, upset him with something or piss him off with an insult, etc., etc., in the calculation that after that he will not be in control of himself and will sing badly. So, according to rumors, some disputants do not hesitate to act occasionally before a responsible dispute. Personally, I have never seen this dastardly trick, but it is certainly possible. You have to be careful against it too.
3. If the enemy is a person "not fired upon", gullible, thinking slowly, although it can be accurate, then some impudent "thinking conjurers" try to "stupefy" him in a verbal dispute, especially in front of listeners. They speak very quickly, often express thoughts in a form that is difficult to understand, quickly replace one another. Then, “without letting them come to their senses,” they victoriously draw the conclusion that they desire and throw an argument: they are the winners. The most insolent sometimes do not hesitate to cite thoughts without any connection, sometimes absurd, and while a slow-thinking and honest opponent tries to catch the connection between thoughts, without in any way suggesting that such impudence is possible, they already leave the battlefield with a triumphant air. This is done most often in front of such listeners who understand absolutely nothing about the topic of the dispute, but judge success or defeat - by appearance. Here is a well-known example of such a trick from The Weckfield Priest.
“That's right, Frank! cried the squire. ... A beautiful girl is worth all the intrigues of the clergy in the world. What is all these tithes and charlatan inventions, if not a deceit, one nasty deceit! And this I can prove."
- “I would like to listen! exclaimed the son of Moses. I think I could answer you."
“Excellent, sir,” said the squire; who immediately figured it out and winked at the rest of the company to get us ready to have some fun.
- “Great, if you want to discuss this topic in cold blood, I am ready to accept the dispute. And above all, how do you prefer to discuss issues: analogously or dialogically?
- "Discuss reasonably" - Moses exclaimed happy that he could argue.
“Again, excellent. First of all, first of all, I hope you won't deny that what is, is. If you don't agree with that, I can't argue any further."
- "Still would!" Moses answered. “Of course, I agree with this, and I myself will use this truth to the best of my ability.”
“I also hope you agree that the part is less than the whole?”
- "I also agree!" exclaimed Moses. "This is both right and reasonable."
“I hope,” exclaimed the squire, “you will not deny that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles.”
- "There is nothing more obvious" - Moses answered and looked around with his usual gravity.
- "Excellent" - exclaimed the squire, and began to speak very quickly: "Once these premises are established, then I assert that the concatenation of self-existence, acting in a mutual dual relationship, naturally leads to a problematic dialogism, which to a certain extent proves (59:) that the essence of spirituality can be attributed to the second kind of precabili.
- "Wait, wait!" Moses exclaimed. “I deny it. Do you really think that I can give in to such wrong teachings without objection?”
- "What?" - answered the squire, pretending to be furious: “you do not yield? Answer me one simple and clear question: do you think Aristotle is right when he says that the relative is in relation?
“Undoubtedly,” said Moses.
“And if so,” exclaimed the squire, “then answer me directly: do you think that the analytical development of the first part of my enthymeme is deficient secundum guoad or guoad minus and give me your reasons. Bring me your arguments, I say, bring me directly, without evasions.
“I protest,” Moses exclaimed. “I have not grasped properly the essence of your reasoning. Reduce it to a simple sentence, then I think I can give you an answer.
- "Oh, sir!" exclaimed the squire, "your obedient servant. It turns out that I must provide you not only with arguments, but also with understanding! No sir. Here I protest, you are too difficult an opponent for me.
At these words, laughter arose over Moses. He sat alone, long-faced, among laughing faces. He did not utter another word during the conversation.
Vekf. Holy Goldsmith. Chapter VII.
4. A lot of gross and subtle tricks are aimed at diverting the attention of the enemy from some thought that they want to pass without criticism. The most characteristic subtle tricks are of this kind.
The thought that we want to carry out in this way is either not expressed at all, but only necessarily implied, or it is expressed, but perhaps briefly, in the most gray, ordinary form. In front of her, they express such an idea, which, involuntarily, by its content or form, must attract the special attention of the enemy, for example, to hurt something, hit him, etc. If this is done successfully, then there is a very high chance that the trick will be successful for an ordinary opponent. He "overlooks" and misses an imperceptible thought without criticism.
Often (especially in disputes without long "speeches"), the technique takes the form of a "real" misleading ". Before the thought that they want to “convey” without criticism, they put some kind of thought that, for all reasons, should seem to the opponent obviously doubtful or obviously erroneous. It is assumed that every opponent is looking for weaknesses in our argument, and the majority pounces on the first weak point that comes across, without much attention skipping subsequent thoughts to it, if they are not conspicuous by fallacy. Let's say X needs to carry out without criticism an idea important for his goal, which the enemy can be very picky about if he notices its importance and incomplete evidence - the idea that the house in question is old. X decides to lead the enemy on a false trail. Knowing that an adversary defending, for example, some B. will certainly lash out with indignation at any accusation of B. of dishonesty, X says: deceit." If the opponent "attacks" the accusation, he can skip the "old house" without criticism. Then it remains in the heat of the fight to quietly repeat these words several times, hiding them in the shadows, until “the ear gets used to them” - and the thought is carried out.
This trick allows for a variety of modifications and, so to speak, "fiority". Sometimes, for example, feeling that a false thought, under the wing of which they want to imperceptibly carry out an argument, may not in itself attract criticism of the opponent, they artificially try to show him that they themselves consider it a weak (60:) point of argumentation. This is where talent comes into play. For example, a person, in tone, facial expression, play of pauses, reproduces the behavior of a person who has expressed a weak objection and is afraid for him; unsure of the strength of the argument, and trying to quickly carry it out unnoticed, eluding criticism. An insufficiently sophisticated adversary can quite easily fall for this bait, if the sophist does not "overplay", does not emphasize his "desire to escape" too unnaturally, etc. etc.
It is worth noting that in oratory speeches, one of the strongest means of distracting attention from thoughts and their logical connection is pathos, an expression of a strong emotional upsurge, as well as an excess of successful tropes, figures, etc. It has been verified by experience that usually the listener is the worst at assimilating and remembering the meaning of such sections of speech.
Chapter 17
Bet on false shame. "Smearing" the argument. Suggestion. "Rubbing" points on thought. Double-entry bookkeeping.
1. Very often the sophist uses the human weakness common to most people to “appear better than it really is” or “not to drop oneself” in the eyes of the opponent or listeners; most often - "false shame." Seeing, for example, that the opponent is weak in science, the sophist puts forward an unconvincing or even false argument under the following sauce: "You, of course, know what science has now established," and so on. Or "has long been established by science"; or "public fact"; or “do you still not know about that?” etc. If the opponent is afraid to “drop himself”, admitting that he does not know this, he is in a trap, and the sophist chuckles in his soul. Sometimes this trick is connected with using the authority of some person - a writer, a scientist, etc. For example, in a dispute with a socialist-Marxist, the "famous saying of Marx" is used. You can often bet eighty against twenty, and sometimes ninety-nine against one, that this "Marxist" did not even leaf through Marx, much less studied him, and never met the "famous saying" anywhere. However, he usually does not dare to say this. Rather, if you are also a socialist, he will pretend that he also knows this saying; more often than not, it will “swallow” the argument without objection.
2. In disputes "to win" another modification of this trick, based on the same weakness, is very common. Everyone knows that in general one thing (61:) is often said and another thought. Secret desires, beliefs, goals - there may be one, words - completely different. But another person will never admit this and will not dare to refute the "words" in order not to "seem" not to be a good enough person. Even Aristotle notes this feature.
Some high moral positions and principles are on the lips of many, in the soul and deeds of the few. For example, not so many people actually fulfill the truth cited by the same Aristotle: “it is better to go bankrupt while remaining honest than to get rich with a lie.” But in words - rarely anyone will contradict her. On the contrary, sometimes a person is “unclean at hand”
Each epoch has its own "traditional truths" that are recognized as necessary to agree with out of "false shame", out of fear of being called "backward", "uncivilized", "retrograde", etc. etc. And the weaker a person is in spirit, the more cowardly he is in this respect.
The Sophist is in the hands of both. Both false and correct shame. He boldly stands on the ground of social hypocrisy and cowardice of the herd man and often acts "for sure".
3. Quite often, another related trick is used, also based on a person’s self-esteem: “oiling the argument”. The argument itself is not evidentiary, and the opponent can challenge it. Then they express this argument in a vague, confusing form and accompany it with such, for example, a compliment to the opponent: “of course, this is an argument that you will not bring in any dispute, a person who is not sufficiently educated will not appreciate it and will not understand it”, etc .; or “you, as a smart person, will not deny that”, etc.; or “it is, of course, quite clear to you and me that”, etc. etc. Sometimes they do not say compliments, but only subtly make it clear that your mind is treated with special respect ... All this sometimes works amazingly in disputes for persuasion. Even in a rude form, sometimes such a technique “softens” the enemy’s soul. “Smeared” with the oil of flattery, the gates of the mind open surprisingly easily to accept arguments. What to do! All people; all are human. As for the sophist, he rubs his hands. That's why the pike in the sea, so that the crucian does not doze off.
4. One of the strongest and most common tricks in an argument is suggestion. Its role in oral dispute is especially huge. Whoever has a loud, imposing voice, speaks calmly, distinctly, self-confidently, authoritatively, has a representative appearance and manners, he has, ceteris paribus, a huge advantage in oral dispute. He unwittingly "impresses", in most cases, and the enemy. Whoever is deeply and firmly convinced of what he is arguing for, and knows how to express this unshakable firmness with a convinced tone, manner (62:) of speaking and facial expression - he also has great inspiring power and also “acts” even on an opponent, especially such who does not have this conviction. A persuasive tone and manner is often more persuasive than the most solid argument.
Perhaps go; only, right, wouldn't it be better for you to stay? You would have waited for us here, would have hunted, and we would have gone with God. And it would be nice! he said in such a persuasive tone that for the first minute it really seemed to me that it would be nice.
L. Tolstoy. Raid.
This "external persuasiveness" and its power is known to everyone from experience. It is the secret of the preaching success of many fanatics. It is used by skillful orators, and in a dispute with many it is one of the most powerful tricks.
5. The suggestion has a special effect on the listeners of the dispute. We have already touched on the "psychology of the typical listener." If the dispute is more or less abstract or goes beyond what the listener “knows through”, “like the back of his hand”, the average listener does not delve into the arguments, does not strain his attention enough to grasp the essence of what is being said, especially if the objection or the answer is long. When the listener already has a certain conviction on the issue under consideration, he usually does not listen even properly to "foreign", opposing arguments. If he does not have a definite conviction, and the dispute does not affect interests very close to him, the listener is guided by more or less external signs in order to judge which side is winning. And this kind of listeners are the most suitable material for suggestion in a dispute.
“The old man shook his head so sternly and victoriously (having expressed his argument, S.P.) that the clerk (one of the listeners, S.P.) immediately decided that victory was on the side of the merchant and laughed loudly.” "The imposing intonation of the merchant, obviously, won over the listeners and the lady even felt depressed." (Tolstoy L. Kreutzer Sonata, ch. 11).
It's taken from life. It is worth taking a closer look at the disputes in order to feel the reality of the image. Whoever speaks in a weak, unsteady voice, uncertainly, under normal circumstances, loses in an argument in front of the audience, no matter whether this argument is won or for persuasion. According to V. James, even in such an abstract area as philosophy, it is important not only what is said, but also how it is said. "However pure and flawless you may find this philosophical current, it does not feel a strong, radical temperament." It has "neither activity nor enthusiasm." "It lacks an aggressive, victorious tone - and lacks authority as a result." (Pragmatism, lecture 1).
6. In addition to the tone and manner of arguing, there are many other tricks designed for suggestion. This is how laughter can act, a mockery of words. This is how statements often work that such and such an argument of the opponent is an “obvious mistake” or “nonsense”, etc. etc. The latter kind of tricks are also used in a written dispute: “our adversary agreed to such an absurdity as,” etc. The “absurdity” itself follows, not at all absurd. She has three exclamation points, but no attempt has been made to prove that this is absurd. Or, on the contrary: "the following words of such and such are extremely witty, thoughtful." There is no wit or thoughtfulness in the "words" of such and such, but the author of the article needs them, and the latter knows that the reader often does not even have time to check his assessment, will not focus on checking his attention, but will simply accept the words with that sauce, under (63:) as they are given to him. Maybe in an hour he will repeat them himself, as witty and thoughtful.
This also includes, by its psychological side, references to authorities. These references act on others like a battering ram that breaks through a wall of distrust. Sometimes they presuppose a fact or someone else's argument, etc. "a few words" intended to "properly highlight" the fact or argument beforehand. Here, too, "suggestion" often lurks, and so on and so forth. In general, all such tricks are in the nature of "rubbing glasses" through which the reader or listener must look at a known issue.
The tricks of suggestion also include the repetition several times of the same argument, which is especially used in oratory practice. Often the argument is presented each time in a different form, but in such a way that it is clear that the thought is the same. This acts as a mechanical “driving into the head”, especially if the code is decorated with the colors of eloquence and pathos. “What the people are told three times, the people believe,” says one of the German authors. This is indeed confirmed by experience.
7. Finally, it should be noted one of the most common mistakes and tricks - although already psychological - the so-called. (not quite right) double-entry bookkeeping. Almost all people are more or less inclined towards duality of assessments: one measure for ourselves and for what is beneficial or pleasant to us, the other for strangers, especially people unpleasant to us, and for what is harmful and not to our liking. In ethics this is expressed in the form of "Hottentot morality"; for example, if I charge you an extra hundred rubles, that's good; if you're with me - it's bad. It is necessary to shout: "Help!" The party newspaper cries out about the injustices and cruelties committed by the other party; what is done by its party is always only necessary or commendable, the newspaper can even boast of the same or many times worse cruelties committed by its allies. Often Hottentot morality has such naive, unconscious forms that one does not know whether one should be indignant or laugh. For example, when a very good person in essence scolds another for gossiping about him - and he himself immediately passes new gossip about it to another. Not out of revenge, no! He just does not realize that this is gossip. Gossip - when others talk; and when we say the same thing, this is a “friendship transfer” of an interesting fact from the lives of acquaintances.
8. When this tendency to duality of evaluation begins to operate in the field of evidence, then "double-entry bookkeeping" is obtained. One and the same argument turns out to be true in one case, when it is beneficial for us, and erroneous when it is disadvantageous. When we, for example, refute someone with the help of a given argument, it is the truth; when they refute us, he is a lie. Naturally, the sophist cannot but accept "double bookkeeping" in his arsenal of tricks: it is too profitable "with skillful use." Another lawyer will refer, for example, to a well-known interpretation of such and such an article of the law, as correct, if it speaks in favor of his client. And he will prove its falsity if, on the contrary, his opponent is based on this interpretation. The same fact is accepted, no doubt, if it confirms our thesis; and its dubiousness is immediately suspected, if, on the contrary, it is expressed by the enemy, etc.
Here is an example of this trick: one of the parties that entered the district dumas of the city of Kh. turned out to be the predominant party in most of these dumas. Having entered into a bloc with other related parties, it did not give a single seat in the council of the hostile party in these thoughts. - Members of the latter argued that they have a right demand a certain number of "management" places: elections to dumas were proportional, therefore, seats in the council should be distributed according to the same principle.
The ruling party rejected this argument as unsuitable, wrong.
However, it happened that in some district dumas it still turned out to be non-predominant. The “kindred” parties took advantage of this and, forming a bloc among themselves, in turn did not give her a single seat in the council. Then she resorted to the same argument that her “enemies” had resorted to in other thoughts. Here he was suitable and correct. - Thus, "double bookkeeping" triumphed.
In cases where the evidence and dispute relate to the field of ethical assessments, "double-entry bookkeeping" is only the formulation of "Hottentot morality" in the field of arguments and evidence. This is clear, of course, by itself.
Sometimes "double bookkeeping" is not hidden at all, but appears with an open visor. This happens in those cases when, in what is beneficial for her, she openly relies on “her own convictions”, and where this is not beneficial, on the convictions of the enemy. Here is an example. In France, Catholics were reproached with logical inconsistency: they demand complete freedom of speech for themselves, while in general they themselves are fierce enemies of this freedom. One Catholic publicist answered something like this: “When we demand freedom for ourselves, we proceed from your principles. This is how you defend freedom of speech. Why don't you apply it to us? When we restrict freedom of speech, we proceed from our convictions. In this we are also quite right and logically consistent.” - Of course, this is often very profitable "accounting"! In a word, a special, heightened love for logic is manifested here.
Double-entry bookkeeping is already quite clearly moving from the realm of "mere tricks" to the realm of sophism.
Chapter 18
essence of sophistry. Departure from the thesis and from the task of the dispute. Substitution of a dispute over a thesis with a dispute over evidence. Translation of the dispute into contradictions in the opponent's argument. Contradiction between words and deeds. Incomplete rebuttal. Change of point of contention.
1. Among the most common and favorite tricks are the so-called sophisms (in the broad sense of the word) or intentional errors in proof. We must constantly keep in mind that sophism and error differ not in essence, not logically, but only psychologically, they differ only in that the error is not intentional, but sophism is intentional. Therefore, as many types of errors as there are (65:) types of errors, there are as many types and sophisms. If, for example, I imperceptibly retreated from the thesis during a dispute, this would be a mistake. If, however, noticing that such a retreat can be beneficial for me, I repeat it already consciously, intentionally, in the hope that the enemy will not notice, this will already be sophism.
2. First of all, it is necessary to mention the sophism of deliberate vagueness or confusion (of the thesis, arguments, or the entire proof). Actually, this is a trick, which is, as it were, a transition from psychological tricks to the realm of sophism in the true sense of the word. The prover speaks in such a way that you will not immediately understand, and sometimes it is impossible to understand at all what he exactly wanted to say. Or, if it is necessary to answer “yes” or “no”, he will answer in such a way that it is impossible to immediately (or not at all) make out what the answer is: “no” or “yes”, etc.
Of course, this trick is not always possible. Most often it is used in speeches, debates, etc. and where there is obviously no immediate demand to find out the meaning of what is said, it is often accompanied by some other trick, aimed at making the listener pretend that the words of the prover are understood by him. Such tricks were discussed in the previous chapter. As an illustration, it is impossible not to recall the charming speech of the “minister” by Al. Tolstoy ("Popov's Dream").
... No, gentlemen! Russia is to
Connecting the past with the future
Create, if I dare say, a view,
Which is called intrinsic.
All times; and standing on your granite,
The haves, so to speak, and the have-nots.
To open a spring of mutual labor.
I hope you understand, gentlemen?
Another illustration is the speech of a fashionable English preacher, from one English story, ( Stefan Remarque, From modern life. SPB. 1906).
Are you asking me if everything that the Gospel says happened? I will tell you this: it happened and at the same time it did not happen. For such simple people as the apostles, all this happened, for you and for me it did not happen.
I can't even safely say that it didn't happen. I would rather say that according to the impression received, according to the action produced, all this happened; but as a tangible, concrete fact, it did not occur. It all depends on how we understand the word "happened." Suppose a man dying of hunger sees in front of him a shop with food supplies. You, well-fed people, do not need these food supplies. The hungry one looks at them with lust. He passes by food supplies, the smell of them swept around him, he takes this smell with him, and it seems to him that he was satisfied with the food supplies he saw. You pass by the same shop window and do not pay attention to everything displayed. Your dinner took place in reality, it constitutes a fact of sensibility; the poor man's dinner took place in his imagination, in his imagination. Both you and he will be right if you say that you had lunch. All this is so simple when we look at everything with simple eyes, not through the prism of narrow sophistical rumors, dogmatic prejudices.
This passage, rich in sophisms, thus ends with a rather spectacular impudence accusation of the opponent's sophisms. Not a bad illustration of the trick, which we will talk about below.
3. There are an infinite number of sophisms, consisting in a deviation from the task of the dispute and in a “retreat from the thesis”.
It is possible to start a dispute with this sophism or mistake, immediately taking, for example, the wrong thesis that is needed; you can do it in the middle of an argument. One can completely reject the previous thesis, one can only change it more or less, and so on and so forth. But the logical essence will be the same - a deviation from the task of the dispute, a deviation from the thesis.
In the foreground, it is necessary to mention the frequent and very important substitution of a dispute over a thesis by a dispute over evidence. The sophist needs to prove that the thesis is false. Instead, he analyzes those proofs of the thesis that are given by the opponent, and confines himself to, if possible, breaking them up. Most often, however, the matter is not limited to this. If it was possible to break the evidence of the opponent, the correct conclusion from here is one: "the thesis is not proven by the opponent." But the sophist pretends that the conclusion is different: that the thesis has been refuted. This is one of the most frequent tricks, and, thanks to the usual inability to distinguish between a dispute over a thesis and a dispute over proof, thanks also to the opponent's usual vagueness of thought and inability to grasp the dispute, it usually succeeds. For example, someone began to defend the thesis: the human soul is immortal. The enemy demands proof. The proofs are given, but such that they are easy to break. The Sophist breaks them down and pretends to have "proved the fallacy of the thesis." The same impression is obtained by most listeners of the dispute. At the trial, the lawyer breaks down all the evidence of the guilt of the accused, cited by the prosecutor. Hence the direct conclusion: guilt has not been proven; but the lawyer sometimes draws a different conclusion: "the defendant is not guilty"; listeners most often conclude: "Justified, then not guilty."
4. This type of sophisms includes the translation of a dispute into contradictions. Pointing out that the opponent is contradicting himself is often very important and necessary. But only not to prove the falsity of his thesis. Such indications are, for example, of great importance in the criticism of some system of thought. Often with their help, you can break or weaken the opponent's evidence. But it is impossible to refute his thesis by simply pointing out the inconsistency of the opponent's thinking. For example, H. just said that he is a completely unbelieving person, and then it turns out that he recognizes the existence of something, "which our wise men never dreamed of." Does this fact of contradiction prove in any way the falsity of his thesis? Meanwhile, often a dispute, the task of which is to show the truth or falsity of the thesis, is translated into a contradiction in the thinking of the opponent. At the same time, having shown that there is a contradiction, they often pretend that the enemy has been completely defeated and that his thesis is false. A trick that often goes unpunished.
5. This also includes the translation of the dispute into a contradiction between word and deed; between the views of the enemy and his misdeeds, life, etc. Sometimes it takes the form, "Physician, heal thyself." This is one of the favorite and common forms of "mouth closure". For example, - say, L.N. Tolstoy proves that virginity is better than married life. They object to him: and you, after your preaching of chastity, had a child. A pessimistic philosopher who argues that suicide is permissible and, it seems to him, has reasonable grounds. They answer him: why don't you hang yourself? They prove to the soldier (67:) that he must go to the front and fight. He replies: "so take a gun and go."
It is clear that objections of this kind are sophisms if the person knows what he is saying. The truth will remain the truth, even though it be uttered by the most criminal lips in the world; and a correct proof will remain a correct proof, even though the father of lies himself constructs it. Therefore, if the question of the truth or falsity, of the morality or immorality of any thought is considered in essence, all appeals to the personality of the opponent are evasions from the task of the dispute. This is one of the types of "squeezing the mouth" of the enemy and has nothing to do with a fair fight in a dispute for the truth. As a method of reproof, it may be required and often necessary. But denunciation and an honest dispute for the truth, like the struggle of thought with thought, are two incompatible things.
However, this trick has an extremely strong effect on both the opponent (often clamps his mouth) and on the listeners. Even if there is no contradiction between our principle and behavior, then sometimes it is difficult to prove it, subtle distinctions are required, lengthy reasoning, in which listeners do not delve into and who are not loved. Meanwhile, the sophistical argument is simple and vitally clear. For example, the answer of a soldier: “why don’t you go to the front if you stand for the war like that?” Simple and clear. Begin to argue that everyone has his own duty to be fulfilled, and without this the state will collapse; that it is his duty, since he is called by law to defend the state, to fight. If the law calls me, I will go too, and so on. Say all this, come up with even more weighty objections: a soldier, and some people more developed than him, often will not understand your reasoning, even if they do not want to “not understand”. Such concepts as "duty", "state", "law", its origin and meaning, etc. for many they are too abstract, distant, vague, complex, and have no power. Meanwhile, his argument - a purely animal argument - is quite clear and illustrative. “No one wants to die. If you are for war, take a gun and go.”
Even worse, if there is a real contradiction between the principle you are defending and between your actions. The adversary's trick is a clear sophism, a transfer of the dispute to another plane, a retreat from the task of the dispute. But the listener does not understand such subtleties. It is only clear to him that our adversary is right on this new plane of dispute. Hence the conclusion that we are wrong, that means we are defeated, or that our thesis is not proven, even false. Meanwhile, such attacks do not in the least concern the truth of the thesis. “Pay attention not to the one who said, but to what is said,” the apostle rightly says. (Controversy in the spirit of such sophisms against the thoughts expressed, for example, by L. N. Tolstoy, often bore a directly impermissible character).
6. When we cite not one argument, but several, to prove the thesis, the sophist often resorts to an “incomplete refutation ». He tries to refute one or two arguments, the weakest or most spectacularly refutable, leaving the rest, often the most essential and the only important, without attention. At the same time, he pretends that he has refuted all the evidence and that the enemy has been "beaten along the entire front." If a dispute over one or two arguments was long and bitter, then the listeners, and often the inept prover, may not remember them. Thus, the trick often succeeds. It is especially used (68:) in written disputes, where they “battle” each other on the pages of various books, newspapers, etc. There the reader often cannot check whether all the arguments have been answered.
7. Among the frequent deviations from the task of the dispute is the substitution of a point of disagreement in a complex controversial thought, the so-called. the rebuttal is irrelevant. The sophist does not refute the very essence of a complex controversial thought. He takes some, unimportant details of her and refutes them, but pretends to refute the thesis. This trick is also more common in written disputes, newspaper, magazine. These disputes are "for the reader": the reader probably did not remember the thesis, and if he remembers it, he will not understand the trick.
For example, a report appeared in the newspaper that, say, the governor had expelled Mr. Limonnikov, who lived peacefully in the city of B, without any legal reason. The governor denies: “The report is not true. G. Limonnikov does not exist not only in the city of B., but in general in the province entrusted to me. The governor is right. There is no Limonnikov in the province. But the point is not in Limonnikovo, but in whether someone has been expelled from the province at a given time without legal reasons or has not been expelled. The surname was given in error, and the governor took advantage of this to refute the details of the message, leaving the essence of it unanswered. The reader will not understand, and in any case, indicating the error in detail undermines the completeness of confidence in the whole. Moreover, from the external formal side, the refutation is correct: the information about the fact is not quite accurate.
Another example. The article says; “This pine, planted by Peter V. in 1709, still exists on Lakhta.” The Sophist declares: "That's not true" and refutes this complex proposition. But he refutes in it not the essence, not what should be refuted, not the idea that “this pine tree still exists on Lakhta”, but the detail: “this pine tree was planted by Peter V . in 1709." Peter could not be on Lakhta in 1709. Let's assume this argument is correct. Then, of course, one can say that there is an error in the thesis (without saying that the error is in an unimportant detail). But the point is not in it.
It is clear that this kind of sophism is "a substitute for the point of disagreement"; more precisely, by replacing the essential point of disagreement with an insignificant, unimportant one.
Chapter 19
Sabotage. Thesis change. expansion and contraction of it. Strengthening and softening. Introduction and exclusion of reservations and conditions. Implied terms and conditions. Homonyms. Synonyms. Transferring the dispute to the point of view of benefit or disadvantage.
1. Completely leave aside during the dispute the previous task of the dispute, an unsuccessful thesis or argument and move on to others, is called "to make a diversion." Diversion is done in various ways. The crudest way is that the disputant directly, "immediately" leaves an argument or a thesis and grabs onto another one. This happens extremely often. In one dispute at a meeting, for example, a worker argued that it was not the workers who interfered with the "freedom loan", but the bourgeoisie. He soon saw, however, that his thesis was weak and that his opponent was beating him in an argument, and he was making a "sabotage": "in general, the war was started by the capitalists." The enemy did not manage to use his position and succumbed to the trick, began immediately to prove that it was not the capitalists who started the war. The diversion was successful. Often the sabotage consists in "transition to personal soil." For example, a young idealist proves to a person of “experience” that such and such an act is cowardly and dishonorable. He at first began to argue “rank by rank”, but, seeing that his case was bad, he made a diversion: “You are still very young and inexperienced. Live, learn life and agree with me yourself. The young man began to prove that youth had nothing to do with it, that "he knows life." The diversion was successful. Or another case. They argue whether the minister is right in publishing such and such documents. One of the disputants sees that his case is bad, and undertakes a diversion: “You are somehow biased towards this person. Just recently, you also asserted that the measure taken by him in such and such a case is quite expedient. But it turned out that it just led to the opposite results. The opponent begins to prove that the measure was beneficial. The diversion was successful. It also happens that for sabotage, they deliberately look for and put forward some kind of paradox, or an opinion that the enemy will certainly not fail to "attack". This is a kind of "bait for sabotage" - Sometimes sabotage is done very subtly and imperceptibly, with gradual transitions, etc.
2. If the dispute is not over the thesis, but over the proof, then the diversion consists in the fact that the defender of the thesis gives up proving his thesis, and starts to refute (70:) ours or demands that we prove our thesis. Here is an example. One young debater started a dispute with a no less young girl, and she tried in every possible way to defend some difficult thesis; the dispute was over evidence. After many labors, the young wrangler, seeing that her case was not moving forward, turned to the enemy with a claim. “Why, I’m all proving my opinion, and you are only criticizing. It's easy to criticize. Prove your opinion? Why are you so convinced of him? The young debater, little versed in the technique of dispute, was ashamed; how it is, in fact - she proves everything and works, and I only criticize! The diversion was successful. He began to prove his thesis and "lost the attack."
It is useful, in conclusion, to note that any diversion, if we "depart" from the previous thesis, turns a concentrated argument into a formless one. In case of diversion from an argument or from proof, the dispute, of course, can remain concentrated.
3. It is necessary to distinguish from sabotage another kind of sophisms associated with a deviation from the thesis or argument - a change in the thesis or argument. We do not refuse them, on the contrary, we pretend that we keep them all the time, but in fact we have changed them. We already have a different thesis or argument, even if it is similar to the previous one. This is often called substitution of the thesis or argument.
Among the different types of such substitution is, first of all, the expansion or narrowing of the thesis (or argument). For example, at first the disputant put forward the thesis: “all people are selfish,” but when he sees that it cannot be proved and the opponent’s objections are strong, he begins to assert that the thesis was simply “people are selfish.” “It was free for you to understand him so broadly. There is no rule without exception. I meant, of course, not all, but the majority. If, on the contrary, the opponent put forward the thesis “people are selfish,” the sophist tries to interpret it in a more favorable sense for himself: in the sense that “all people are selfish,” since in this form the thesis is easier to refute. In general, the sophist usually tries to narrow down his thesis if the matter is bad: then it is easier to defend it. He seeks to expand the opponent's thesis, because then it is easier to refute it. Often he resorts to various tricks to force the opponent himself to expand his thesis in the heat of the moment. This is sometimes not difficult, evoking a "spirit of contradiction" in a hot head.
More examples of another kind of extension and narrowing of the thesis. Thesis: A. well acquainted with Russian literature. The attacker expands it: “A. a connoisseur of literature (in general)”, the defender narrows: “A. I am well acquainted with modern Russian literature.
4. Related to the expansion and contraction of the thesis, strengthening and softening it. They lead to a "distortion" of the thesis and are perhaps even more common. The thesis was given, for example, as follows: "Our ministers are mediocre." The enemy "distorts" it, amplifying it: "You claim that our ministers are idiots." The defender of the thesis, if things are bad, tries to “soften” the thesis: “no, I said; that our ministers are not at the height of their vocation.” Or another example. Thesis: "the source of this money is very suspicious." The opponent reinforces the thesis: "You claim that this money is stolen." The defender, if he finds it necessary, softens the thesis: "I only said that the source of this money is unknown." Strengthening the thesis is usually beneficial for the attacker and is often carried out in the highest degree (71:) unceremoniously and arrogantly. The softening of a thesis is usually done by its defender, since it helps the defense. And here they often do not stand on ceremony.
5. One of the most frequent substitutions of the thesis (and argument) is that a thought that is given with a certain reservation, with certain conditions under which it is true, is replaced by the same thought, but already expressed “in general”, without any conditions and reservations. This trick is most common in rebuttals and has the most success with the less intelligent listeners. The underdeveloped mind tends to understand everything "simple"; he does not know how to note "subtle differences" in thoughts, he directly does not like them, sometimes he does not tolerate and does not understand. They are too difficult for him. Therefore, subtle distinctions seem to such a person either "cunning", "cunning", "sophism", or (if he is somewhat educated) "unnecessary scholasticism". This partly results in the difficulty of arguing about complex issues that require precise and subtle analysis and distinctions with an undeveloped opponent or, especially, with undeveloped listeners. But such questions include, for example, most of the political, state and public, etc. questions. On this basis, the sophist, other things being equal, has a huge advantage. An honest debater will give a correct argument, with the necessary reservations, expressed quite accurately. But an undeveloped listener usually does not catch, does not remember these reservations and conditions, and does not at all appreciate their importance. Taking advantage of this, the sophist deliberately omits clauses and conditions in the argument or thesis of the opponent and refutes the thesis or argument as if the thought was expressed without them, but “in general”. This is often aided by strengthening the thesis, oratorical devices: "indignation", etc., almost inseparable from the type of "meeting sophist". All this affects the undeveloped listener very strongly, and it takes a lot of composure, resourcefulness and wit to beat off such an attack, if the public generally sympathizes with the views of the sophist. Here is an example: H. argues that "at present, at the current level of development of the majority of the people, the famous" four-tailed "(direct, secret, universal, equal vote) in the election to the State Duma is harmful to the state." The opponent omits all these reservations and begins to prove the antithesis that direct, secret, etc. Voting is (generally) useful for this and that. Or I argue that "the death penalty is necessary under certain circumstances and conditions." The enemy refutes me in front of the audience as if I had argued that the death penalty is generally necessary and calls me "an ardent defender of the death penalty", while throwing thunders of indignation and indignation at me. Undeveloped and sympathetic to the sophist listeners also begin to resent - "which was required to be proved." It often takes a lot of composure, knowledge of "listeners" and resourcefulness to repel such an attack.
The reverse trick is when what was approved without a reservation, without conditions, is then approved with a reservation and a condition. It is more common on the defensive side. For example, at first a person argued that “we should not go to war” at all, under no circumstances. Pressed against the wall, he replaces this statement; "of course, I did not mean cases when the enemy attacks without any reason and ruins the country." Then he can introduce some other clause.
6. These tricks - especially the last one - are greatly facilitated by the incompleteness and inaccuracy of ordinary speech. We very often express a thought with only implied reservations. These reservations "go without saying" because, if they are expressed, the speech becomes some kind of heap of reservations - unusually heavy and "indigestible." An example is the business language of contracts, etc. documents developed by legal, etc. practice in defense against "pocket business sophists".
Thus reservations are implied at every step, and this leads to the possibility of innumerable errors and sophistry. A. says: "arsenic is poison." This implies the reservation "if you take it more than a known amount." B. omits this clause and says: "The doctor prescribed arsenic for me, so it poisons me." In Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, Shylock concludes a condition with the merchant Antonio: if Antonio overstays the bill, then he, Shylock, has the right to cut him "a pound of meat, as close to his heart as possible." The deal was done legally." The bill is past due and Shylock is demanding an agreed penalty. The wise judge (Portia) saves Antonio like this. "On this receipt," she says,
You have the right to take.
Only a pound of meat, there is exactly a pound of meat in it.
Written; but does not give permission.
She's not worth a damn to you.
So take what suits you -
A pound of meat, but carving the meat
If you are a drop of Christian blood.
Spill - your property and land.
The country will take the republic itself.
Such is the law of Venice.
Lawyers in the last century have debated whether Portia's decision is legally correct.
Opinions were different. But from the point of view of logic, this decision is an undeniable sophism. When someone says that it is necessary to cut a piece of meat from a living body, he inevitably implies that this will shed blood; and whoever consents to the cutting of such meat agrees to the self-implied inevitable condition of this cutting - the shedding of blood. So Portia deliberately changed the terms of the contract, taking advantage of the fact that it was expressed usually, without exhaustive accuracy and completeness.
7. There are positively countless other forms of substitution of the thesis and arguments.
Let us briefly list the most common and important of their genera.
The same word can mean different thoughts. Therefore, it is often easy, keeping the same words of the thesis (or argument), first to give them one meaning, then another. One of the most common mistakes, one of the most common sophisms. We often do not even notice how many different meanings the same word has. Therefore, it is easy for a sophist to “wrap” us, who perfectly distinguishes all of them. Take the word "people". Few people tried to understand its meanings, but there are many of them: a) the people means the same as the little-used word "nationality". (“Peoples of Europe”; “study of peoples”; “ethnology”); b) people - all citizens of the same state, united by citizenship to it. Thus, one speaks of the "Russian people" as opposed to the "Austrian people", of the "English people", and so on. "The entire Russian people recognized the revolution," etc.; (73:) c) the people - the lower classes of the population, opposed to the intelligentsia, the "ruling classes", etc. Hence the terms: “go to the people”, “populists”. "He came out of the people", etc.; d) people - generally means a collection of people, without distinction of classes, nationality, etc., or rather, a group of people located in one place. "There are a lot of people on the street."
At the command gate.
The people were gathering.
Dense ... etc.
It goes without saying how easy it is to “play” with such a word in sophisms. - When a handful of "people" - workers, peasants, etc. - gather in the streets and declare the "will of the people", then there is an unconscious substitution of thought; when an orator, an experienced sophist and demagogue, says to this crowd: “You are the people, the people’s will must be fulfilled,” then he, replacing the meaning of the word, often consciously replaces the argument or thesis. And there are a lot of such “ambiguous words” as “people”.
8. Very often they use the properties of the so-called synonyms, words and expressions, different in sounds, but denoting different shades of the same concept. If these differences in hue are not essential to the question, then synonyms can be used one instead of the other indifferently. If they are essential, then a more or less important change in the thesis results. Especially in this respect, the difference is important if it is accompanied by a difference in assessment, a shade of praise or blame. For example, it is far from all the same to say. "BUT. pious" and "A. hypocrite". "Jealousy for the Faith" and "Fanaticism". "Protest" and "outrage". "Left" by conviction and "revolutionary", etc. If I expressed the thesis: “zeal in faith is the duty of every religious person,” and my opponent changed it: “you say that every religious person should be a fanatic,” then he distorted my thesis. He introduced into it a connotation favorable for refutation. He put in signs that make the thesis undefendable. Of course, to say that fanaticism is the duty of every Christian is absurd. Or, let's say I say, "priests should receive such and such benefits." My opponent puts this thesis in the following way: “H. thinks that the priests should have some property.” The name "pop" in the mouth of an educated person has a certain disparaging connotation, and by introducing it into the thesis, the opponent thereby introduces a decrease in the stability of the thesis. In general, this trick is probably the most common. People resort to it as if instinctively, trying to designate the concept with a name that is most favorable for themselves, the most unfavorable for the enemy. And the cruder the mind, the cruder and more primitive such sophisms come out.
9. Of great importance is the "translation of the question in terms of benefit or harm." One must prove that the thought is true or false; prove that it is good for us or bad. It is necessary to prove that the act is moral or immoral; prove that it is beneficial or disadvantageous for us, etc. For example, one must prove that "God exists"; prove that faith in His existence brings comfort and happiness. It must be proved that "the socialization of the means of production is feasible at the present time"; prove that it would be beneficial to listeners. Often there are no more convincing arguments for the average person than those conclusions that affect his vital interests. Even the simplest arguments of a purely "pocket quality" ( argumenta ad bursam) have a magical effect. One argument acting on the will, vividly and vividly depicting the benefit or disadvantage of something, is sometimes stronger than a hundred arguments acting on the mind. If, however, we are dealing with ignorant, obscure listeners who do not know how to carefully delve into the issue and discuss it, then they have a clever argument “from benefit”, vividly and (74:) clearly drawing what immediate benefit or harm a person can receive from an event etc. etc., often quite hypnotizing. They are "enchanted" with the anticipation of future gains. They don't want to listen to arguments against. From reasoning about the impracticability of this or that, about the harmful consequences that may come later, they dismiss like children. It goes without saying what a fertile ground this is for the sophists; how luxuriantly every kind of demagogy grows on it. This is well known to every "swindler of the word." Therefore, this trick is a favorite tool of such scammers.
Here is an example of a simple "pocket argument" (with an admixture of "stick").
- Or, for example, Ireland! Ivan Petrovich began with new animation, after a pause: “They write that the country is poor, there is nothing to eat, there is only one potato, and that one is often not suitable for food ...
Well, so what?
Ireland is subject to England, and England is a rich country: there are no such landlords as there. Why not take at least half of their grain, livestock, and even give it back to Ireland?
What is this brother you preach: rebellion? said Nil Andreevich suddenly.
What a riot, Your Excellency... I'm just out of curiosity.
Well, if there is famine in Vyatka or Perm, and they take half of your bread for free, why not go there?
How is that possible! We are a completely different matter...
Well, how will the men hear you? - pressed Nil Andreevich - huh? what then?
Well, God forbid! - said the landowner.
Save God! said Tatyana Markovna, and so on.
Goncharov. Break.
This is an argument - to the pocket of the landowner; We have heard similar arguments about the peasants' pockets. These arguments are unspeakably convincing for those for whom they are intended. Here it is not superfluous to quote a witty note about this trick from Schopenhauer. “Where this trick is applicable, the rest can be left out. Act not on the mind, with the help of arguments, but on the will, with the help of motives; then both the opponent and the listeners, if they have the same interests as his, will immediately agree with your opinion, even if it was borrowed from a lunatic asylum. After all, a lot of will weighs for the most part heavier than a centner of reasoning and persuasion. “When we are able to tangibly prove to the enemy that his opinion, if it acquired significance, would cause significant harm to his interests, he will just as hastily throw this opinion away, like a red-hot iron that he accidentally grabbed in his hand.”
Chapter 20
Changing arguments. Multiplication of arguments. Partial lie. Ridiculous arguments. subjective arguments. difference in them. Their assessment. Lawyer's argument. "Pig" form of it.
1. Sophisms of argument are even more numerous than deliberate deviations from the thesis. We have already talked about the substitution of arguments during a dispute. Everything that has been said about the substitution of a thesis also applies to the substitution of arguments. It is often resorted to when they see that the argument is weak or inconvenient for some reason. The sophism “multiplication of an argument” is relatively rare, when the same argument is repeated in different forms and words and passes for two or more different arguments. This trick is especially used in disputes in front of listeners, in long speeches, etc. Sometimes it is very difficult to figure out whether one thought is before us, expressed in different forms, or several different thoughts; attention is needed, and often a good knowledge of the issue in question. All these qualities are rarely inherent in the average listener, who does not know how to single out arguments consciously. Here is a simple example of multiplying an argument. Thesis: "God exists." Proof: “In our spirit there is an immediate confidence in God. We absolutely cannot get rid of the thought of God. We cannot think about the world, we cannot think about ourselves, without the thought of God involuntarily joining with it. Through everything visible and finite, our thoughts rush to the highest, invisible, infinite, and their movement does not calm down before they reach their goal. We must of necessity think of God. The consciousness of God is just as essential an element of our spirit as world-consciousness and self-consciousness,” etc. etc. (Lutardt, Apology of a Christian, III reading). Let the reader decide for himself how much argument is made in this entire passage. Bain quotes in a book (Rhetoric etc.) the remark of an experienced author: "On the mass, one argument, presented in five different forms, works exactly the same as five new ones."
2. The most common fallacies of argument are fallacious argument and arbitrary argument. When it comes to a deliberate mistake, about sophism, the false argument takes on the character of a false argument. Let us suppose that the sophist does not have at hand true arguments on which to rely. Then he takes some idea that is obviously false to him, new to the opponent or to the listeners or not recognized by them until that time - for example, a false fact, a false generalization, (76:) a false quotation, etc., and passes it off as true. At the same time, he often (and especially in disputes for persuasion) uses the gullibility of the opponent or listeners, his authority, suggestion, or all possible other tricks to force him to accept such an argument.
The success of such sophistry is greatly facilitated if the lie is partial, i.e. such, which speaks of Satan in Alexei Tolstoy (in "Don Juan").
Lies grew together with the truth and stuck to the truth so much,
That there is no way to scrape it off.
And not only is it impossible to scrape off, but often it is impossible to immediately distinguish where the lie ends and where the truth begins. We have already had occasion to speak about this above (Chapter XI, 6). Such lies pass unnoticed, often hiding under the cloak of the truth that goes along with it. Similar cases in ordinary life - the darkness of those. For example, they put forward the argument: "these people were severely beaten." A fraction of the truth: they were beaten. Share of lies - "brutally" beaten. The pessimist says: "life is suffering." The thought is false. But we feel that it is based on a partial truth: there is a lot of suffering in the life of mankind, and so on.
3. It is interesting that, along with such partially true arguments, absurd arguments are often launched with success in oral disputes over victory. Firstly, it is very difficult to refute other absurdities in an oral dispute, and even in the presence of ignorant listeners. Even more: as there are "obvious", unprovable truths, so there are "obvious", irrefutable absurdities. Secondly, an absurd argument often directly puzzles the opponent with its unexpectedness; You won't find an answer right away. Other and completely lost: obviously absurd - but how to prove it to the enemy, and even with these listeners! This requires long discussions and such premises, which he (and they) do not have and which he will not wish to accept. For example, the opponent will say: "instead of truth, I recognize a lie, instead of good, evil." There are after all such caricatures of the superman in Russia. What to say to him? - It remains only, in the manner of Major Kovalev, to shake his head and say, slightly spreading his hands: “I confess, after such arguments on your part, I can’t add anything” ... And leave the dispute and the “winner”. Those who are witty may try, before leaving the dispute, to make fun of the sophist. But arguing further is hardly useful.
The same role is played by ridiculous questions in informing. The late Sanskrit scholar Minaev describes a characteristic dispute in Ceylon between a Buddhist preacher and Christian missionaries, in which the latter were defeated. “Attacking his opponents, Gudananda restructured all their teaching in his own way and put forward a whole series of wild questions, which, due to their absurdity, put the missionaries in difficulty” (Minaev. Essays on Ceylon and India). This technique is sometimes used by us.
4. A false argument must be distinguished from a subjective argument. A false argument, as it was said, seeks to introduce a thought that is obviously false for the sophist into the thinking of the interlocutor or listeners, to force them to accept it. A subjective argument can also be obviously false for us, or, in any case, unconvincing. But we know that the interlocutor considers it true. It is not introduced by us into the thinking of the opponent or the listener, but is borrowed from this thinking. Thus, if we strive to prove some (77:) really true thesis and use a false argument, then we introduce into the opponent’s thinking not only the truth (thesis), but also a new error, a new error (argument). If we prove the same thesis with the help of a subjective argument, then we do not introduce new errors into the mind of the opponent or the listener, but only a new truth.
In practice, this difference is recognized as so significant that a false argument is considered an impermissible dishonest trick, and a subjective argument is used constantly, often at every step, as a permissible trick. For example, in a dispute for persuasion, if there is no “common ground”, one cannot take a single step without an objective argument. Arguing to win often resorts to this trick, especially for listeners. Only the highest form of dispute - the dispute for the study of truth - never descends to it.
Here is an example of it, compared with a false argument. A. wants to prove that religion - a relic of past superstition. As proof, he cites a new argument for his interlocutor: “After all, science has already proven that there is no God.” This argument is either erroneous or patently false. If it is deliberately false (i.e., A. knows that science has not proved and cannot yet prove anything of the kind) and meanwhile A. introduces it in order to convince the enemy of the non-existence of God with the help of the authority of science, then this argument is false.
Suppose now, A. argues about the same thesis with another opponent, who, as he knows, has repeatedly expressed the conviction that "science has proven the non-existence of God." If A. says: “After all, you admit that the non-existence of God has been proven by science” - this will be a subjective argument. A. proceeds in proof from the conviction of the opponent, which he himself considers erroneous.
I repeat, such tricks come across extremely often. Without them, many disputes would be impossible, for example, disputes in front of listeners to convince them. They cut the argument. They give an extra chance in the fight against the sophists. But we must not close our eyes to the fact that they are not always, not under all circumstances, permissible.
5. First of all, it makes a big difference whether we openly rely on the opinion of the enemy or covertly. In the first case, we say something like this: “because you think so-and-so. Let's not argue whether your idea is correct or not. But the truth of my thesis necessarily follows from it. Or: “we will take your point of view” ... etc. Here we do not hide from the enemy; that for us personally his argument does not matter; it seems to us controversial or even erroneous. But the enemy obviously considers it to be true; therefore, we say, he is obliged to accept our thesis, which necessarily follows from this argument. In a word, we want to force the opponent to accept our thesis by forcing him to be logically coherent.
By launching a hidden subjective argument, we act differently: we are completely silent about our attitude towards him, hoping that this silence will be accepted as a "sign of consent"; or even directly mislead the enemy, declaring that we also consider this argument to be valid. For example, we accompany it with introductory words: "it is certain that ..." or "it is known that ...", etc.
6. The open-subjective argument is completely irreproachable from a moral point of view. He sometimes "can and must" be brought - says Whatley, to silence (78:) those who do not give in to good arguments, or in order to convince those who, due to weakness or prejudice, cannot recognize their strength. Whetley points out that Christ also used similar arguments in disputes with the Jews to silence them (Logic, 352-3). But to convince the opponent or listeners, such an argument can by no means always be recommended. While presenting a thought, at the same time expressing doubt about its truth - especially when doubting it is also beneficial for the opponent who does not want to be convinced - a bad psychological calculation. Therefore, in practice, latent-subjective arguments are extremely often used. Usually the only limits imposed by conscience and tact are dictated by the principle: "the end justifies its corresponding means." They try to make the thesis a judgment, undoubtedly true for us, and the benefit of accepting it significantly outweighs the harm from confirming (that is, from strengthening by our agreement) an argument that is false from our point of view. Examples of a covert-subjective argument can be collected as many as you like from oratorical speeches and oratorical duels. When a notorious atheist social revolutionary once addressed peasant listeners with the argument that "the land is God's" given to everyone equally, etc., he used a "hidden subjective argument." When the “rightist” in 1917 at a rally turned to the opponent of the socialist with the argument: “so decided the congress of the river. and deputies, how to go against this decision?” - he used a hidden-subjective argument, etc., etc.
Hidden-subjective arguments in the hands of an unceremonious and unscrupulous person turn into a terrible tool of demagogy and excitation of the crowd. They receive the often typical and ominous character of "arguments for the mob" (ad plebem), based on its ignorance and dark prejudices. But a decent person can hardly do without them, to convince people of very good thoughts, if he often has to convince people.
7. Often the worst forms of subjective argument, sometimes false argument, include some types of the so-called "lawyer's trick", "lawyer's argument" (Adwokatenbeweis). The essence of this trick lies in the fact that the sophist "takes advantage of any negligence of the enemy" (Kant), - his mistake or even a direct slip of the tongue, reservation, etc.
Let us suppose, for example, that the adversary clearly misunderstands some law (in legal practice). The Sophist sees this very well, but such an understanding is to his advantage. Therefore, he will be careful not to attack the opponent's argument from this side; on the contrary, he tries to leave his adversary in his delusion and base his argument on his mistake, which otherwise, perhaps, would not have gone well. This is, of course, an application of subjective reasoning.
8. This ruse takes on a completely "swine", sometimes vilely "litigious" character when they use an obvious slip of the tongue, a typo, a typo, despite the adversary's direct statement that this is a typo, etc., so that here this ruse takes on the character false argument for listeners or readers, etc. This trick is used for various purposes; sometimes they want to mislead their readers or listeners who are not able to verify the argument; sometimes they want to weaken the impression of some statements, at least for the first time, and so on. (79:) opponent, using a slip of the tongue or misprint, etc., etc. Here is an example from newspaper practice. One newspaper made a sensational revelation about a political assassination that was sensational at the time and named the killer's name. But, due to a typo, one letter in this surname was distorted. This was given immediately to know by telephone in the editors of other important newspapers. Unfortunately, one of the latter, Novoye Vremya, defending the party to which the murderer belonged, argued the next day as if she knew nothing about the typo: she posted an “indignant” letter from the person who had the surname printed by mistake; launched indignant articles against the "slander" against him, etc., etc. A move that not everyone will take.
Chapter 21
Demand for evidence. Hidden reasons. Arbitrary names. Evil nicknames and beautiful names. A game of two synonyms. Unfounded assessment of the opponent's arguments. Refutation "on credit".
1. Undoubtedly, the most common mistake and the most common sophism is "arbitrary arguments." It is enough to look carefully at the articles of any newspaper, the speech of any speaker, listen to the argument of any person - and we will almost invariably come across in them arbitrary, not at all obvious and unproven assertions and denials, on which people rely to support their opinions. Only in strictly scientific books from the field of exact sciences such errors rarely slip through.
The recognition or non-recognition of an argument as "arbitrary" depends, however, in practice, to a large extent on the degree of our exactingness to it. In one case we are more demanding, in the other we are less demanding, and this is quite correct. Exactingness to arguments should in practice have degrees. Otherwise, we fall into the error of "excessive doubt" or "excessive precision", which also corresponds to its own special sophism. If we begin to investigate the validity of every argument and under all circumstances with absolute precision, then ordinary dispute would not be possible, practical activity would not be possible. It would remain to repeat the wisdom of the ancient skeptical philosophers, who considered it necessary to apply the measure of absolute certainty and therefore to doubt everything. Here is an example of such a doubt (as depicted by Molière):
Marfurius: What do you want, Monsieur Sganarelle?
Sganarelle: Doctor, I would like to consult with you about one circumstance and I came here on purpose.
Marfurius: First of all, Mr. Sganarelle, I beg you, change your manner of speaking. Our philosophy requires that there be no completely decisive proposals, that everything be said indefinitely, and that judgments be conditional, conjectural. And therefore you must not say: I have come, but it seems to me that I have come.
Sganarelle: Seems?
Marfurius: Yes.
Sganarelle: Hell! It must appear, if it really is!
Marfurius: It does not follow one from the other; it may seem to you without the fact that the fact actually existed.
Sganarelle: How! Do you think it's certain that I came here?
Marfurius: This is still a question - and we must doubt everything.
Sganarelle: How! I'm not here, and you're not talking to me?
Marfurius: It seems to me that you are here, and it seems that I am talking to you, but this is not certain.
"Forced Marriage" Transl. F. Ustryalova.
Marfury's mistake is that he uses refined chemical scales where it is necessary to weigh on ordinary benches. There is a certain degree of exactingness to the argument, established by the logical tact of a person. In science, she is alone; in legal practice - another; in ordinary life - the third. And within these limits, it depends mainly on the greater or lesser importance of the dispute to us. If someone argues with us over a dime, we will have one degree of exactingness to his arguments; if the dispute is over two hundred thousand - completely different. If a dispute is very important to us, for example, a radical change in our worldview, in our life, in the assessment of our work depends on the outcome, the exactingness sometimes goes beyond the reach of common sense:
Do you see?
Even if I see it, I don't believe it.
The sophist very often uses this loophole in order to elude defeat in an argument. "Not proven!" "Arbitrary argument!" "Prove it!" "I do not believe!" These cheap pronouncements, in skillful hands, turn into a very important retreat.
But just as being too demanding on arguments is a mistake or a trick, so too being too undemanding is also a mistake. It is precisely logical tact and experience that is needed in order to find the appropriate measure of exactingness in each given case.
2. Of all the types of sophisms of arbitrary argument, it is necessary first of all to single out "hidden arbitrary arguments." The point of this trick is this. Usually, in reasoning, especially in disputes, not all the thoughts necessary to draw one or another conclusion are given. Some of them are "omitted" and should be implied by themselves. For example, in the reasoning: “all people die, we will die too” is omitted and the thought (“premise” of the reasoning) “we are people” is implied by itself. You can skip another one instead of this one. “We are all human, so we will die.” Here the thought "all men die" and so on will be omitted and necessarily implied.
In oral disputes, there are especially many such skipped thoughts. We have, however, the right to omit only those premises which are obvious. The sophist does the opposite. “The sophist lets out what is not obvious, and in fact constitutes the weakest side of the reasoning, trying at the same time to divert attention from the place where the error is located” (Whatley. Logics, 200). Let us analyze the most characteristic type of this error - the sophism of an "arbitrary name", which hides the argument.
3. A huge role in sophistical practice is played by names with an omitted premise that justifies them. After all, each name must also be justified. When I say: "this officer is a well-known traveler," the thought itself implies: "this man is an officer." When I say, "such manifestations of anarchy as this act are unacceptable in the state," the thought itself is implied: "this act is a manifestation of anarchy." In a word, each name implies a justifying premise that gives the right to this name. This premise is also an argument, a hidden argument, and very often arbitrary. Meanwhile, humanity, due to laziness of thought and for many other reasons, is especially inclined not to check this kind of hidden arguments. , but take them on faith.
Meanwhile, the adoption of the name often decides everything. After all, having accepted it, we, thereby, accepted that the object designated by it also has the corresponding properties.
Reasoning correctly, we should often first make sure that the object has these properties, and then accept its name. In fact, we first accept its name, and, based on the name, we conclude that the object must have certain properties. It turns out, as it were, an “inverted proof”. The sophist takes advantage of this defect in ordinary thinking, trying to make us first accept the name of the subject on faith; and along with this, those properties of the object in which he wants to convince us will “pass” imperceptibly.
4. In order for us to accept the name on faith, he uses, in addition to our usual inclination to this, also various usual tricks, for example, suggestion. He speaks in a peremptory tone, uses the name as something taken for granted, undoubtedly correct. Distracts attention from checking hidden exculpatory premise, etc., etc. There are names which are particularly suitable for such a ruse: these are those names which have a connotation of censure or praise; they are used as "malicious nicknames" or "beautiful words", "beautiful names". Of these, the most suitable are currently fashionable "combat" nicknames and names. For many, these words become something like a fetish or a "bogey" for Ostrovsky's Moscow merchant's wife. Often it is in the full sense of "hypnotizing with l ova". They act on a person of little development, like a chalk line on a chicken. They say that if you bend the chicken's head to the floor and draw a straight line from the beak with chalk, the chicken will remain motionless in this position for some time, contemplating only this line. Similarly, a person hypnotized by the corresponding word loses the ability to reason whether this word is applied correctly or not. Especially if they hit hard on such a word and spread about it "in eloquence."
5. Playing with "beautiful names" and "malicious nicknames" occurs at every step, for example, in newspaper polemics of the well-known (82:) type. Mr. X made some statement in the meeting: the newspaper writes: (depending on the “regime”) this obviously revolutionary statement (or counter-revolutionary statement) shows to what extent the hydra of revolution (or counter-revolution) has raised its head among us, etc. Then there are eloquent arguments about this "hydra" - and the more eloquently, topics better; eloquence will divert attention from checking whether a statement is truly revolutionary or counter-revolutionary. Reading the statement itself, we usually do not delve into it with due attention; therefore, the "evil nickname" passes "by itself", without criticism, especially if it is given in "our newspaper", which we trust. Sometimes these "malicious nicknames" frighten or, as the people say, "frighten" timid people. But sometimes a malicious nickname turns into a terrible tool of demagoguery. It is known from history that it is worth shouting to the crowd at some point: “this is a provocateur”, “poisoner”, “revolutionary”, etc., and the fate of a person will be decided. Of course, sometimes “punching” with malicious nicknames in stupid hands has a tinge of comic. So there was a time when some "public organizations", which had huge capitals at their disposal, but very much disliked government "revisions", "scare" that the revision of their activities was a "counter-revolutionary act."
6. “Beautiful names” are no less successfully used in order, for example, to soften the impression of some fact, or “to pass off a crow for a hawk”, etc., etc. The words "rogue" and "criminal" have a very unpleasant connotation; but if you call the same person "expropriator" - it sounds noble. Sometimes a name serves better than any fence. When a gang of criminals occupies a house and robs, they will not stand on ceremony with it. But as soon as they throw out the "black flag" and call themselves "anarchists" - and you get a completely different impression. The unwillingness to sacrifice oneself for the motherland, when it is our duty, is not a particularly respected quality; but it is worth calling the refusal to go into battle "war against war" or the like, and the most stupidly base, animal coward takes on the appearance of a "fighter for an idea." - This black magic of words is well known to sophists. Where the remnant of shame, the voice of conscience, etc., etc., prevent a base act from being committed, a demagogue comes there as a devil-tempter and throws a “beautiful name” to cover up base motives. Most seize on it fervently as an excuse to free themselves from what they don't want. - This is how the “inner sophist” tempts us within us; so acts to help him, often a much more cunning, skillful and unscrupulous external sophist.
7. Often the game with beautiful names and malicious nicknames becomes more complicated, turning into a "game with two synonyms." It needs a pair of synonyms, usually distinguished from each other most sharply by a laudatory and disapproving tone of thought, for example:
Generosity and extravagance, stinginess and stinginess, freedom and arbitrariness, firm power and despotism, etc. etc. Let's take two such synonyms: "freedom of art" and "unbridled art". The censor forbade the printing of X's pornographic work. The defender of X in the newspaper begins something like this: “Again censorship! Again the pencil of the executioner of thought is ruining the flowers of free art... Recently, the book of the venerable X, the content of which was not to the chaste censor's liking, has been banned.
"…Pornography! - It is not for us, of course, to defend the unbridledness of art, we will not defend the right to existence of such infamy as pornography. Our reader knows this. It must be persecuted, it must be punished, this poison of the spirit must be exterminated without pity. But you need to be able to distinguish between pornography and light art, which elevates life to the pearl of creation! Otherwise, we will reach the destruction of the Capitoline Venus or the divine bacchanalia of Rubens! We will come to the prohibition of "Ruslan and Lyudmila", this prank of a young genius. But the hand of the censor does not know such distinctions and dares and encroaches on everything, even on the freedom of art. Then there are sometimes "jokes from the life of the censor" and "fiery talented" defense of the freedom of art from the censors. How hot, how convincing in the forms of a magazine template! - Only one thing is missing: proof that the work being protected is not pornography, but “light art”. - And this is the whole point. This trick can be called "playing with two synonyms."
8. One of the most common tricks of the dispute belongs to the same kind of sophisms of an arbitrary name - an unsubstantiated assessment of the opponent's arguments. Many, having heard the argument of the opponent, declare categorically: “nonsense!”, “nonsense!”, “sophism!”, “play on words”, “this is stupid!” etc., etc., etc. If they later prove the correctness of their assessment, then all the same, such sharp qualifications of the opponent's arguments are at least unnecessary. Especially before any proof of their correctness. It must be said, however, that in the vast majority of cases such estimates are both unprovable and incorrect. But sometimes they don’t even try to substantiate them, but “let them go like that”, in the form of an argument, in the form of an objection. This is already the purest sophism of an arbitrary name: the name replaces the argument, but is itself not proven. Even more - this is one of the crudest sophisms of this kind. Here is an example from Herzen.
Human life is a great social duty - said Louis Blanc. Does a person have to constantly sacrifice himself to society?
What for? I asked suddenly.
What do you mean why? Have mercy: the whole purpose, the whole purpose of a person is the welfare of society.
It will never be achieved if everyone sacrifices and no one enjoys.
This is a play on words.
Barbaric inconsistency of concepts, - I said, laughing.
Or another example (from Turgenev).
When he (Stakhov) wanted to finally defeat the enemy, he said: all these are just phrases. I must confess that to many people such objections seemed (and still seem) “irrefutable.
The day before, ch. III.
Arbitrary arguments include or are associated with more subtle assessments of arguments intertwined with other sophisms in order to get rid of the labor of answering them. For example, "this argument is too crude and primitive and should not be reckoned with." Or “there is nothing to dwell on this naive argument”, etc. etc. We must remember that since we are arguing with someone, since we have found it possible to argue with him, then it is our duty to refute all these arguments, no matter how “rude” or naive they may seem.
Adjacent here are such tricks of arbitrary argument, such as the one in which one English logician reproaches W. Hamilton. “The latter sometimes gets away with such words from the difficulty of refuting the opponent’s thoughts: “in the final result of the analysis, this thought leads to a contradiction.” But he does not try to show that she really leads to this. Thus, a “refutation on credit” is obtained, which must be attributed either to errors or tricks. (Monck. Ad Introduction to Logic. 1880). Or they get off with the remark: “We will not dwell on this argument, since its fallacy is obvious, but we will move on to more essential things.” Or: “here we will not prove the truth (or falsity) of this thought. We will prove it in another book,” and so on. This last one too to lending. The forms of such errors and tricks are innumerable.
9. Further, one of the most common types of arbitrary argument is incorrect references to authorities. Arguments “from authority” are very important and, in general, often cannot be dispensed with without them. But we must remember two conditions for their correct application: a) these arguments are correctly applied or, in the absence of substantive arguments (which happens very often, because we cannot know everything, experience everything ourselves and personally verify everything); or in support of arguments on the merits. In itself, the reference to authority in the vast majority of cases is only a more or less probable (and not reliable) argument; b) secondly, each authority is an authority only in the field of its specialty. If there are several such areas, the better for him, of course. But outside the specialty, he is an "ordinary mortal", and the reference to him in these cases is a mistake or sophism. Here are two conditions under which reference to authority can be correct. In other cases, such a reference is an error or sophism (a false or arbitrary argument).
But even under these conditions, reference to authority has different degrees of probability, which must be taken into account each time separately. For example, in the field of a given person's specialty, there are issues on which his truthful opinion can be considered reliable, and there are issues where it does not go beyond the average degrees of probability. For example, let's take science. A. argues: "the theory of the world ether is currently abandoned by many physicists." In confirmation, he refers to the words of Professor X, known for his precise mind and wide knowledge of the modern state of physics. It is clear that such a person could not make a mistake in this matter. Just as we cannot do it in the question: did we receive a salary or not. The whole point will be whether A. correctly conveyed the words of X. On the contrary, if A. refers to the words of X as evidence that such and such a controversial theory in physics is erroneous, then X's opinion (if it is correctly conveyed) can only have a value of greater or lesser probability, depending on many circumstances. X is an authority, but X is a man. Perhaps it is not the new theory that is mistaken, but its assessment by this authority.
10. Abuse of references to authorities is characteristic of young people who are often carried away and those people who are not used to, do not like and do not know how to think independently. Those, for example, about which one can repeat Gogol’s words: “He has a mind, but now, after the release of the magazine, and the book was released late - and there’s nothing in (85:) his head” (Theatrical travel). Sharply, but witty, Schopenhauer speaks of such lovers of authorities.
People who seize on authorities so hastily and with such ardor in order to resolve controversial issues by referring to them are, in fact, glad that they can use someone else's reason and someone else's insight, in the absence of their own. Their number is legion. For, as Seneca said: unus quisque mavult credere, quam judicare (Everyone prefers to believe rather than reason). Therefore, in their disputes, the usual weapons are authorities. They beat each other with them. Whoever took up a dispute with them, he did wrong, if he wants to defend himself against them with substantive arguments and arguments. Having plunged into the abyss of inability to reason and think, they are enchanted against this weapon - a kind of Horny Zizfrid. Therefore, they oppose you in the form of arguments with authorities and shout: “victory!”
Paregra and Paralipomena II, 266.
In the form of a not uninteresting characteristic example of disputes of this kind, I will cite the story "Radda Bye" (Blavatsky).
“One stately Indian, draped in a white and gold shawl, with gold rings on all toes, a huge sign of Vishnu on his forehead and in a gold pince-nez, turned to me with a direct question: Have I, having lived so long in America, my homeland Thomas Pena, believe in any deity?
I confess, I believe, and I do not at all repent of such ignorant weakness, - followed my answer.
And in the human soul? he asked with a restrained grin.
Yes, and into the soul, and, surprisingly, even into the immortal spirit...
The young master, nervously playing with the rings on his legs, turned with a new question, quite original this time.
So, in your opinion, Huxley is a charlatan and a fool?
In turn, I had to goggle my eyes.
Why so? I asked pince-nez.
Huxley - I said - as a naturalist, physiologist and scientist, I not only recognize, but also bow before his knowledge, respecting in him one of the greatest authorities of our time, i.e., in everything related to purely physical sciences; but as a philosopher I have a very low opinion of him.
“But it's hard to go against logical conclusions based on fact. Have you read his article in Forthightly Review about "human automatism"?
- I think she read ... and what I remember from his amazing sophisms ... But what about her?
- That's what. The professor proved undeniably in it that man is nothing more than a conscious and self-conscious automaton, adding to this in his "Lay Sermons" that man is "the most cunning of nature's clockwork," but no more, and so on.
From the caves and wilds of Hindustan, St. Petersburg. 1912. 257-8.
These arguments: “so-and-so proved indisputably”, “it is proved by science”, etc., are so often found in some disputes and so comparatively rarely they are correct. Either the mistake of an illiterate in logic and in science immature thinking, or - sophism, i.e. false argument. How often it is used - probably everyone knows.
11. A trick of the opposite nature - a complete negation of authorities.
In reality, there are comparatively few questions in which we can seriously, with full knowledge, with the expenditure of all the necessary labor and strength, deal with ourselves. These questions usually do not go beyond the immediate worldly experience and interests and beyond the limits of our immediate specialty. For the rest, we involuntarily rely on the experience and knowledge of all other mankind. You can't take a step without them. But if so, then it is natural to rely on the experience and knowledge not of the first person who comes across the path, who may be completely unsuitable for this purpose, but on the information of obviously the best experts in the field to which the question relates, i.e. rely on authority.
Sometimes it is the courage of a “free thinker”, whose thought is “free” because it is not bound by the principles of reason, or the trick of a young dilettante of thought, “original” by his negation, according to the precepts of good old times. "The spirit of denial, the spirit of doubt", etc.
“I already told you, uncle, that we do not recognize authorities,” Arkady intervened.
We act by virtue of what we recognize as useful, ”said Bazarov. At the present time, negation is the most useful - we deny.
That’s all…,” Bazarov repeated with inexpressible calmness. P.P. stared at him. He did not expect this, and Arkady even blushed with pleasure. (Turgenev. Fathers and Sons).
More often, however, what is encountered today is not a complete denial of authority, but another sophism: the denial of that authority which is correctly cited in support of one's thought by the opponent. For example, suppose I stated that "the positive electron has not yet been isolated from the atom", and confirmed my assertion by referring to the recent emphasis on this fact by the same well-known, generally recognized connoisseur of physics and exact thinker, Prof. X. My adversary and I are profane in these matters; authority I have given quite correctly and to the place. But the opponent did not want to admit the argument I am proving, and he begins to sophist. "Excuse me, but Prof. H. God, or what? Can't he be wrong? Until recently, he was caught in such and such a mistake. "Yes, prof. H. is not a god, he can make mistakes. It is possible that he was convicted and rightly so. But the whole question is how make a mistake? There are questions in which his mistake is as unbelievable as the mistake for you and me on the question of whether the State Duma has been dissolved or not.” However, in such cases, to help the argument, as unproven, it is necessary to select other arguments. The enemy has reached his goal.
Chapter 22
Identity. "The argument is weaker than the thesis." Reversed proof. Circle in proof.
1. The sophisms of an arbitrary argument often include those imaginary proofs in which either a) the same thesis is cited as an argument to prove the thesis, only in different words - this will be the sophism of identity (idem per idem); or b) the proof is, as it were, "turned upside down." A thought that is reliable or more probable is made a thesis, and a less probable thought is an argument for proving this thesis, although it would be more correct to do just the opposite. This sophism can be called "reversed proof". Finally, c) in the same dispute, in the same system of proofs, first they make thought A a thesis and try to prove it with the help of thought B; then, when it is necessary to prove thought B, they prove it with the help of thought A. It turns out mutual responsibility: A is true because B is true; and B is true because A is true. Such sophism is called the "false circle" or "circle in proof" or "vicious circle." Sometimes it happens in a hidden form. A is proved by B, but B cannot be proved except by A.
The same names as sophisms bear the corresponding errors.
2. Identity occurs often, much more often than we notice it. It has already been noted above how difficult it is sometimes to distinguish one and the same thought under different words. Especially if it is expressed in at least one of the cases in a confusing, difficult, vague way. Sometimes the identity word has a crude form, for example, "believe me, you can't help but be convinced: this is the truth." (Gogol. Theatrical tour). Or another example, from student essays: "It cannot but be true, because it is the truth." But often the identity is hidden under very subtle forms. And it is not always possible to establish exactly whether two almost identical thoughts are before us or one and the same. For proof, however, both cases are usually equally unsuitable. When A. Pushkin complains about critics: “Our critics usually say: this is good, because it is beautiful; and that's bad, because it's bad. From now on, you can’t lure them out in any way ”- he accuses them of identical words.
Or here is another example of identity: “the beginning of the universe is unthinkable without the Creator; because it is inconceivable that it arose spontaneously, by itself. Or - from (88:) a more abstract, philosophical area. Every property, quality, etc. there is a quality and property of something, i.e. one cannot exist on its own. On this basis, many philosophers - and in the old days all - accepted existence, in addition to the properties of the "carriers of properties" (the so-called substances) that were still separate from them.
And here one famous philosopher (XVIII century) writes: “it is recognized ... that extension, movement, in a word, all perceived qualities need a carrier, since they cannot exist on their own.” (Berkeley. Treatise, § 91). The argument and thesis I have underlined are the purest identity. It should be noted, by the way, that the more abstract the question, the greater the danger (ceteris paribus) of falling into an identical word.
3. With arbitrary arguments, it very often happens that the argument being cited is even less acceptable to the person for whom it is intended, even more doubtful than the thesis itself. For example, the thesis: "There is no God," and the argument: "God was invented by the oppressors to enslave the weak." Or the thesis: “deception is allowed in this case”, and the argument: “no morality exists. All these are just conventions”, etc. The reversed proof connects this fallacy with a curious feature of certain pairs of propositions.
There are such pairs of judgments in which any judgment can serve as an argument for the other, if this other is put as a thesis, but vice versa, the second can serve as an argument for the first. It all depends on which of them we recognize as more probable and acceptable. For example, such is the following pair of judgments: "recently it rained heavily" and "the streets are now dirty." If we know that it has rained recently, we can conclude that the streets are dirty. If, on the contrary, we only know that the streets are dirty, then we can conclude that it has recently rained ... So two proofs are possible from the same two thoughts. You can prove thought A from thought B; it is possible, as it were, to turn, “reverse” this proof and prove thought B from thought A. Depending on what we consider more likely - A. or B.
And so, when the error of which we spoke above (“the argument is weaker than the thesis”) occurs in connection with such a pair of thoughts, then most often what can be called a reversed proof (hysteron proteron) is obtained. Thought A is proved by thought B. But thought B is weaker than thought A, and it would be correct to prove just the opposite: to base thought B on thought A. For example, let's say someone claims that this act is our duty (argument); therefore, this is a good deed (thesis). But for us his argument is weaker than the thesis. We are not at all sure that this action is our duty, but rather would agree that this is a good deed. Therefore, from our point of view, it would be more correct if the thesis took the place of the argument, and the argument took the place of the thesis. Those. we see in this case an error or sophism of a reversed proof.
Since here everything depends on which of the two logically connected judgments we recognize as stronger, more likely than the other, and such assessments can be different for each of us, this kind of error becomes very vague and subjective. For one, the given proof is perfectly correct; for another it is an inverted proof. For example, given the following proof: God exists (argument); This means that there is also a moral law (thesis). Many (p. 89:) consider him absolutely correct. But for a Kantian, this proof will be an erroneous, reversed proof. For a Kantian, it is correct, on the contrary, to prove that since the moral law exists (argument), it means that God exists (thesis), and so on. Due to this subjectivity of assessments, sophism of this kind is often elusive.
4. On the same connection between judgments, the well-known error is most often based - the “false circle” in the proof. The difference is usually only that with it both proofs, both correct and reversed, are given in the same dispute (or book, etc.), by the same person. It turns out that at first the disputant proved thought A with the help of thought B; and when it was necessary to prove B, he began to prove it with the help of A. The result was a vicious circle. For example, at first H. argued that “the river must have become (thesis), because there was a strong frost at night” (argument), and then he begins to prove that “there must have been a strong frost at night (thesis), because that the river has become ”(argument). Most often, people fall into a false circle who themselves are personally equally confident in the truth of both the thesis and the argument. Therefore, when they have to prove thought A, they take as an argument thought B, connected with it by the above connection; but then, when it is necessary to prove thought B, they forget that they have already put into play the connection between these two thoughts, and give thought A as an argument. After all, for them they are equally reliable. For example, for an orthodox Mohammedan, two thoughts are equally undoubted: “everything that is written in the Koran, to the last line, is true” and “The Koran is divinely inspired.” These thoughts are in close logical interconnection. And so, when it is necessary to prove one of them, he does not hesitate to use another. If it is necessary to prove this one as well, then, forgetting about the proof just launched, he can easily use the reverse. This happens especially often in long disputes, long articles, books, etc., where such forgetfulness is quite possible. Thus, a false circle will turn out. “In the Quran everything is true, because the Quran is divinely inspired”, and “The Quran is divinely inspired because everything in it is true, to the last line”, etc.
What the one who falls into such a mistake does out of oblivion, the sophist does out of good will and consciously. Now he was proving to you that the will of God is perfect, because it is absolutely based on moral principles, which are perfect; if you ask him a little later, why does he consider moral principles to be “perfect” and is there not something higher than moral principles? He can answer: moral principles are the principles of the will of God, which is perfect, or the like.
The false circle, like sophism and error, is common, much more often than we notice it.
Chapter 23
False generalization. Sifting through the facts. Falsification of facts. Substitution of concepts. "Babi" or "lady's" argument. Imposed consequence. Multiple questions.
1. Sophisms of inconsistency or incorrect reasoning, i.e. those in which the thesis "does not follow" from the arguments are also very common. In such cases, they sometimes say: “From here (i.e., from the argument) nothing else follows”; or “your argument does not prove anything”, etc. Unfortunately, it is inconvenient to analyze such sophisms in detail on the pages of this book. This requires some prior knowledge of logic. Here it is only possible to give some of them, the most important and easily understood by everyone.
First of all, it is necessary to mention the "false generalization". A person gives several examples of such and such persons or such objects having a certain feature, etc., and without further reasoning concludes that all such persons and objects have this feature. Like how Gogol's hero saw that all the Orthodox he met eat dumplings, and from this he concluded that all Orthodox generally eat dumplings, and whoever does not eat them is not Orthodox. Or Thekla from The Marriage noticed that all officials, above the titular councilor, drink, and took this for a kind of “law of nature”: “A. drinking; definitely drinking. What to do, he is a titular adviser!” This is how we reason, and we very often, of course, in less naive forms. Everyone tends to lubricate under one color. For example, an Englishman - well, that means a person with a strong will. We saw several bad people among the members of some party - well, that means "all of them are like that." If the heart is attracted to the party, then we are inclined to see in all its members "smart and honest people."
2. This tendency is aided by conscious or unconscious sifting of facts. Our memory also sifts them, citing only those facts that we have observed that correspond to our mood or preconceived opinion. Newspapers are sifted almost mechanically. The newspaper prints only what it finds interesting, and it is only interested in facts of a certain kind. Therefore, they get into the press, while the opposite ones do not, even if there are incomparably more of them. read opposite newspapers, etc., etc. When such sifting of facts is done consciously, i.e. turns into a trick, it is called juggling the facts.
Juggling facts and false generalizations are among the sophist's most common tools.
3. Then the sophism "substitution of concepts" is very common.
The fact is that in every proof or in different arguments, or in an argument and a thesis, some one and the same concept is always repeated at least twice. Without it, there would be no logical connection. For example, a proof is given: "all people are mortal, the saints are people, which means that the saints are mortal." Here, in both arguments, one and the same concept occurs: people. In the first argument and in the thesis one and the same concept: mortal. In the second argument and thesis - one and the same concept: saints. The entire logical connection in this proof is based on this identity of concepts. Try to replace the concept of "people" in one of the arguments with another concept, for example, "spirits" or in the thesis, replace the concept of "saints" with another concept, for example, "bishops". There will be no logical connection.
4. It is precisely this identity of concepts encountered in various places in the proof that one must watch especially vigilantly. Otherwise, an error will result - a substitution of a concept or, as it is often said, a "substitution of a term" in the proof. It is very easy to fall into it, especially due to the inaccuracy of our ordinary speech. The same concept is often expressed in different words. Therefore, sometimes it is not easy to immediately figure out whether we have exactly one concept in different words, and not two different concepts. An even more treacherous feature of speech is that the same word often denotes several different concepts. We have already talked about this above. Here sometimes you yourself will not beware and in one place of the proof you will use the word in one sense, and in another place you will give a different meaning. Especially if the proof is long, and the word is not entirely clear in meaning. It is even easier to make such a mistake in a dispute when our opponent uses the word in one sense, while we use it in another. This happens very often. For example, if someone in a dispute mentions the words Ap. Paul: "Love is the totality of all perfections", and the other agrees with him, this does not mean that they think the same thing. In Russian, the word "love" has especially many meanings. You can love God and potatoes, the bride and an old dressing gown, your neighbor and a “cold bath”. It seems that, for example, Don Juan, Alexei Tolstoy falls into such a mistake of "substitution of concepts". It is worth comparing his words:
5. Of the other sophisms of inconsistency, it is necessary to mention here, first of all, a very common and often rather curious sophism, which can, perhaps, be called "woman's" or more politely - "ladies' argument." It is also in use among men, and how; but in female lips, in general, for some reason, it receives a special brilliance and relief.
Its essence is this. On many questions, it is possible, not one, not two, but several, many solutions, several assumptions, and so on. Some of them are opposite to each other. According to common sense and according to the requirements of logic, all of them must be taken into account. But the sophist does the opposite. Wishing, for example, to defend his opinion, he chooses the most extreme and most absurd opposite of other conceivable solutions to the problem and opposes his opinion. At the same time, he invites us to make a choice: either to recognize this absurdity, or to accept his thought. The greater the contrast between the absurdity and the opinion it defends, the better. All other possible solutions are deliberately hushed up.
Here is an example from life:
BUT. That you treated him so dryly. He, the poor man, felt very uncomfortable with us.
B. How would you like me to deal with him? Put in a corner instead of images and pray?
There are a thousand ways to treat people besides these two. But B. chose for the contrast the most absurd of conceivable absurd ways. Or here is another example - from "serious" disputes. So "serious" that here the woman's argument is mixed with a cane. Men argue:
BUT. In my opinion, the Provisional Government ( option- the current composition of the government) is completely unsuitable for governing the country.
AT. What, then, in your opinion, should Nikolai and Rasputin be brought back again?
6. No less common is another kindred sophism: the imposed consequence. Most often it has the external form of the so-called reduction to absurdity.
It is known that one of the methods of refuting an incorrect thought is that we consider its consequences. If the consequences that necessarily follow from (93:) it are false or downright absurd, then the very thought from which they follow is also erroneous. The sophist, however, distorting this device, often tries to impose an absurd consequence on his thoughts, which does not follow from it at all. Here is the simplest example (from the "everyday dispute").
BUT. I think that the same reproach (about vehemence in an argument) can be returned to you. I repeat the words of Jesus Christ: "To the doctor, heal yourself."
B. Oh my goodness! He makes himself equal with Jesus Christ!” etc., etc.
Or another case (also from the "everyday dispute", from life).
B. Oh, how tired I am!
AT. But you didn't have to work very hard today. H attached the curtains. F went shopping.
B. BUT! So you call me a parasite! So, you think I'm a parasite! etc., etc.
7. Finally, among the other sophisms of reasoning, one can also mention here “many questions”, a very common sophism in antiquity, thanks to the special form of the dispute of that time. But it is still common today. At present, it most often takes the form of misinformation. On any issue, only a conditional decision is possible: in some cases it is necessary to decide in this way, in others in another way. The sophist, on the other hand, requires that the opponent "simply" answer - "yes or no." If the opponent wants to make a proper "difference," he is accused of "not wanting to answer directly and resorting to evasions." Here is an example (again from life)
- “Is it fair or dishonest to defend another people (in a dispute) to the detriment of our own? Answer without evasions, directly: yes or no?
But wait! I cannot answer this question in two words, because ...
BUT! Can't answer directly! When you're backed up against the wall, you're always up to tricks.
No! The question itself is of such a kind that it is impossible to answer it with only “yes or no”. This is a difficult question and it needs to be...
We have heard these loud phrases of yours, we know your tricks ... I don’t need any intricacies ... You answer me directly: honestly or dishonestly? etc.
Chapter 24
Precautions against sophisms and tricks. "Exposure" of sophisms and tricks. "conviction" in them. The question of the permissibility of "reciprocal sophisms". motives that justify them.
1. He who has well studied the tricks of the sophists and knows how to immediately recognize them, he will largely protect himself from them. How to answer each of them in one case or another depends on the tact, resourcefulness, etc., of the debater. "Prescribing a special remedy" for each of them and for all circumstances is hardly possible. Only one thing can be said: whoever takes in a dispute all those precautionary, “preventive”, so to speak, measures that we have indicated in this book, will largely protect himself from any encroachments of a sophist. The most important of them are: a) argue only about what you know well. To remember, in a word, Shchedrin's ruff's admonition to the "idealist carp": "in order to argue and uphold opinions, one must at least get to know the circumstances of the case in advance"; b) do not argue unnecessarily with a swindler of a word or with a “rude” in a dispute, and if you need to argue, then be “on the alert” all the time; c) learn to "cover" the dispute, and not wander from argument to argument; d) in every possible way to maintain calm and complete self-control in a dispute - a rule that is especially recommended; e) carefully and clearly clarify the thesis and all the main arguments - one's own and the opponent's; e) reject all arguments that are not relevant to the case. If at the same time the debater knows well and is able to recognize quickly at least all those tricks that are indicated in this book, then the sophist can rarely hope for the success of his tricks.
Others consider it necessary to "expose" the tricks, and with them the sophist. This can be said this way: when it comes to sophistry, it is better never to resort to this means, or in the rarest obvious cases. When it comes to other tricks - not sophisms - sometimes the opposite is true: the best way to "expose" the trick. But here, too, there are many such simple tricks (not sophisms), to which the best and only reasonable answer is not to succumb to them.
2. "Revealing" in sophism - after all, in the vast majority of cases this comes down to the same "reading in the hearts", conscious or unconscious: here, after all, it is a matter of a person's intention, of a deliberate mistake. Accused of sophism - it is necessary to prove the accusation, otherwise it will be completely unacceptable, "unfounded accusation." And in order to prove it, one must: a) prove that there is an error in the (95:) proof and b) prove that it was made intentionally. The first is often easy to prove. But to prove with certainty the intention to "cheat in a dispute" in most cases is very difficult or impossible. In this case, the dispute may take on an extremely difficult, unpleasant personal character, and we will be left with an accusation that we have not proven.
We must also remember that very often such an accusation is not completely reliable for ourselves; and often, if it seems to us reliable, it may seem so erroneously. We're not immune from mistakes here. For all this, it is much better and more reasonable to confine ourselves to pointing out the error in the opponent's reasoning, without entering into a discussion of whether it was intentional or not. This, after all, is quite enough to break his proof. The rest, as they say, "from the evil one." Let's leave it to the sophists to accuse the interlocutors of sophisms - since this is one of their favorite tricks. How can they not love her, because this accusation cannot often be refuted, just as it is impossible, of course, to prove it. But she can leave an impression on the listeners of the dispute, etc., partly according to the principle: "slander, slander, something will stick."
3. On the other hand, such tricks as stick arguments, arguments to the “policeman”, disruption of the dispute, insinuation, etc., etc. must be exposed wherever possible to prove them. Their essence is of such a nature that it is often not difficult to prove their existence. True, such revelations affect the opponent-sophist relatively rarely: for the most part, the person who consciously resorts to them has rather thick skin and you can’t get through his “revelations”, he will continue his work. But there are people who use such tricks out of insufficient awareness, "do not know what they are doing." Such people may also be “ashamed” when they see with their own eyes a vivid image of the essence of their trick. Such disclosures are useful for both listeners and readers. Finally, generally speaking, to remain silent and endure such methods without protest where one can prove their existence is an act even anti-social. This means - to encourage them in the future. Protest in these cases is our duty, even if we could not expect a tangible result from it. But, of course, where the presence of such tricks is unprovable, one has to remain silent for the same reasons as with sophisms.
Psychological tricks - suggestion, distraction, techniques aimed at "pulling out" the enemy, etc. also usually do not require "exposure". Proving their existence is often difficult, almost always out of place. This reduces the dispute to the individual, in the mud. The best remedy against them, as far as we are concerned, is not to give in to them; respond to "suggestion" with appropriate methods on their part, etc. etc. etc.
4. The last advice concerns an important question: is it permissible to answer tricks in a dispute with corresponding tricks. You can answer it like this: - there are tricks that are unforgivable for an honest person under any circumstances. For example, such is the vile ploy to "unsettle" the enemy before a responsible, important dispute, in order to weaken his strength; or "disrupting the dispute", etc. etc. There are always permissible tricks, which we talked about at the beginning of this section - for example, delaying an objection, etc. The rest of the tricks are an area where opinions differ. Some consider themselves not in the right to let them in, although the enemy resorts to (96:) the most vile methods; others - for the most part practitioners - think that they are then permissible. Among such dubious tricks are sophisms. Some never stoop to sophisms, others consider sophisms sometimes permissible. This is a matter of conscience.
In justification for those who respond to sophisms with sophisms and other tricks, we can say the following. Often there are only two ways to deal with sophism: a) to show with obviousness that the proof is wrong; "reveal a mistake" and b) respond with another sophism or a trick that paralyzes the sophism of the opponent. The first way is, of course, unconditionally crystal clear. Unfortunately, in many cases it is either completely inapplicable in practice, or it makes the argument extremely difficult and weakens the impression. If the dispute is in front of the audience, and the sophist dexterously wields his tricks, the chances in the struggle often become too different. He, for example, launches such a false or arbitrary argument, to expose the falsity or dubiousness of which before these listeners is very difficult or even impossible. His argument is entirely based on the range of information and concepts available to these listeners or peculiar to them, and therefore is completely clear, understandable, simple for them, and produces a complete illusion of irresistible truth. In order to show its full falsity, it is necessary to raise the listeners above their horizons, to give them a store of new information, to inspire new premises; it is necessary to show that the question is far from being as simple as it seems, and sometimes, on the contrary, is very complex and confusing, or even does not allow reliable solutions. All this is often completely unrealistic. Even if a sophist opponent allows you to develop long arguments and substantiate premises without interference, then another listener will not listen to them: he will run away, fall asleep, protest. Everything complex, confusing, indefinite in reasoning, he is inclined to attribute to a flaw in your thinking. Straining your attention to follow your new or difficult reasoning for him is hard for him. Meanwhile, "on a clear and simple" argument of the enemy, he "rests". Well done! - speaks clearly, simply and captures the essence. And he - how he went to twist! On the one hand, it is impossible not to confess, on the other hand, it is impossible not to confess ... It is sickening to listen to.
Here is an example to illustrate. They argue about "Constantinople and the Straits" - should they be demanded or not? The listeners are ignorant workers and peasants, for whom the whole world fits, as for a Gogol hero, in the space “on this and that side of Dikanka”. The sophist opponent says: “Think for yourself - you people are adults. Why do we, peasants, need that Constantinople? And any straits? Why should we shed our blood for them? And so spilled enough. - And who wants Constantinople? You look: who is a worker, who is a peasant, they all do not want. And the bourgeois, the capitalists, the rich are busy. It's in their hands, I suppose. This is the first thing for them to make money. So let them go and shed their own blood. And ours - they drank enough. We won't give any more." - Try to expose the fallacy of these conclusions before an audience of workers and peasants. You will see how difficult it is when even the minds of many intellectuals cannot contain the objections that can be raised against this primitive argument.
That is why people who are completely honest and correct, in extreme cases, allow themselves to respond to sophisms and tricks of the enemy with tricks and sophisms, when the dispute is about important issues of public, state, etc. values. There is no need to be hypocritical: this way of dealing with a dishonest opponent is often found in the tactics of parties, in diplomacy, etc., etc., etc. They differ only in the limits to which their use reaches. But, we repeat, this is a matter of conscience for everyone.
In any case, Schopenhauer’s words on this issue cannot be accepted without restriction: “If we see,” he says, “that the enemy has launched an imaginary or sophistical argument, then, of course, we can break the latter, showing its falsity and deceptive appearance. But it is better to counter him with an equally imaginary and sophistical argument and defeat him in this way. After all, in such a dispute it is not about truth, but about victory. (Eristische Dialektik. Kunstgr. 21). - It turns out that it is always better to answer sophisms with sophisms. This is an obvious extreme. It is permissible to answer the words of Schopenhauer as follows: "where possible, it is better not to get dirty in the mud."
A trick in an argument is any technique by which they want to facilitate an argument for themselves or make it more difficult for an opponent.
A great contribution to the development of the theory of tricks was made by the ancient Greek thinker Aristotle, the German philosopher A. Schopenhauer, the Russian logician S. Povarnin and other researchers (K. Pavlova, P. Mitsich, L. Averyanov, I. Melnik, A. Nikiforov, etc.) who succeeded in their work to significantly improve the classification of possible tricks in disputes.
Analyzing previous experience in systematizing tricks and expanding their arsenal of use, we will reduce the totality of tricks into three groups: organizational-procedural, psychological and logical:
1. Organizational and procedural tricks
The tricks of this group can only be used by the organizer of the negotiation process or discussion. They are oriented either at disrupting the discussion, or at a deliberate clash of opposing views of the participants in the discussion in order to inflame the atmosphere, or at reducing negotiations to a discussion option that is obviously unacceptable to the opponent. Let us give the characteristics of the main organizational and procedural tricks.1.1. Formation of the primary installation.
The essence of the trick is to initially give the floor to those whose opinion is known, impresses others and is able to form in them a certain attitude to the perception of any idea. In this case, the “framework” effect is triggered, according to which the tonality and direction at the very beginning of the discussion forms in the minds of those around them the necessary setting for a directed perception of certain provisions of the problem under discussion.
1.2. Providing materials only the day before
This trick consists in providing participants in the discussion with working materials (projects, contracts, programs, etc.) intended for discussion shortly before it starts, when it is simply physically difficult to familiarize themselves with these materials.
1.3. Avoiding Rediscussion
The trick succeeds when the decisions made are fixed rigidly and re-discussion is deliberately not allowed, even when new, noteworthy data that can influence the development of the final decision arrive.
1.4. Incandescence of the atmosphere by the "aggressors" of the dispute
The trick involves alternately giving the floor to aggressive opponents, allowing mutual insults, which are only formally, for appearances, suppressed. As a result, the atmosphere of the discussion heats up to the point of being critical, and to the question addressed to the participants in the discussion: "Shall we discuss further?", as a rule, the majority is inclined to answer: "No!"
1.5. Primary succession in voting
The essence of the ploy is to put proposals to the vote not in the order in which they are received, but according to the degree of their acceptance by the interested party, so that those who hesitate can "cast their votes" more quickly.
1.6. Suspension of discussion on the desired option
Such a ploy means to stop discussing an important issue in a speech that reflects the most desirable position. In this case, the people around are influenced by the already known “framework” effect, when the ideas of the last speech are able to more strongly form the necessary psychological attitude to the perception of the necessary information.
1.7. Selective loyalty in compliance with the regulations
This is the case when some speakers are severely limited in the regulations, while others are not. There are similar restrictions in the nature of statements: some are forgiven for "harshness" in the address of the opponent, others are emphatically reprimanded.
1.8. Pseudo de jure decision making
This trick is used when people who do not have the right to vote are specially invited to the discussion, and during the discussion they ask the invitees what their opinion is about the problem under discussion. Then, focusing on the opinion of people who do not have a decisive vote, they make the right decision.
1.9. Break in discussion
The essence of the trick is to call a break in the discussion at a key moment in the discussion, when a highly uncomfortable and unacceptable solution can be worked out.
1.10. "Blowing off steam" on non-essential matters
This is such a model of discussion, when at first they deliberately discuss insignificant, secondary issues for a long time, and then, when many are tired of the discussion or are under the impression of any previous verbal-emotional "skirmish", they bring up for discussion the issue that they want to discuss without increased criticism. .
1.11. "Random" missing documents
This is a deliberately created situation, when the participants in the discussion are "as if by accident" given an incomplete set of documents, and then along the way it turns out that someone (unfortunately) is not aware of all the information available.
1.12. Overinformation
This is the opposite of the previous trick, which consists in the fact that a lot of draft possible solutions are being prepared and it is simply physically impossible to compare them in a short time during the discussion.
1.13. "Loss" of documents
The trick succeeds if working documents, letters, appeals, notes and everything that can negatively affect the course of the discussion are lost "as if by chance". There are other tricks of an organizational and procedural nature (“Ignoring the proposals received”, “Unexpected change in the agenda of the discussion”, etc.), which are aimed either at disrupting the discussion or at reducing the discussion to mutual insults, etc. The ultimate goal of the data tricks, as shown above, - to reduce the discussion to options that are obviously unacceptable to opponents.
2. Psychological tricks
Psychological tricks are understood as such unacceptable (from the point of view of morality) methods of dispute, discussion, polemics, which are based on the psychological impact on the interlocutor in order to put him into a state of irritation, play on his feelings of pride, shame, use manifestations and other subtle features of the human psyche .2.1. Irritating the opponent
Bringing him out of a state of mental balance by ridicule, accusations, reproaches and other methods until the interlocutor is irritated and at the same time makes an erroneous statement that is unfavorable for his position.
2.2. Use of obscure words and terms
This trick can cause, on the one hand, the impression of the importance of the problem under discussion, the weight of the arguments, a high level of professionalism and competence. On the other hand, the use of incomprehensible, "scientific" terms by the initiator of the trick can cause the opposite reaction on the part of the opponent in the form of irritation, alienation, or withdrawal into psychological defense. However, the trick succeeds when the interlocutor is either embarrassed to ask again about something, or pretends to understand what is being said and accept the arguments given.
2.3. Bewildered by the pace of the discussion
When communicating, a fast pace of speech is used and the opponent who perceives the arguments is not able to "process" them. In this case, the rapidly changing stream of thoughts simply dumbfounds the interlocutor and introduces him into a state of discomfort.
2.4. Transferring the dispute to the sphere of speculation
The essence of the trick is to turn the polemic into a denunciation and force the opponent to either justify himself or explain something that has nothing to do with the essence of the problem under discussion. An example of a trick is to say something like: "You say this because your position requires it, but in fact you think differently."
2.5. Mind reading for suspicion
The meaning of the trick is to, using the "mind reading" option, divert all kinds of suspicions from yourself. As an example, one can cite a judgment like: "Maybe you think that I am persuading you? So you are mistaken!".
2.6. Referring to "higher interests" without deciphering them
The essence of the trick is to express an idea containing a hint that if the opponent, for example, continues to be intractable in a dispute, then this may affect the interests of those whom it is highly undesirable to upset or unbalance. An example of this trick, as a variant of the "stick argument", may be an appeal like: "Do you understand what you are trying to do when you disagree with the arguments given?".
2.7. Judgment like "That's corny!"
The main idea of the trick is to force the opponent to react to the unambiguity and unsubstantiated assessment, which really does not contain any arguments. Indeed, the opponent's reaction to remarks like "This is all nonsense", "This is nonsense", "This is common knowledge", "This is banal" is quite predictable. Having heard such an assessment, few people resist the temptation to emotionally prove that this is not so. To induce to justification - this is the insidious design of the trick.
2.8. Carthage must be destroyed
This is the name of the following psychological trick, the idea of which is to "accustom" the opponent to any thought. "Carthage must be destroyed" - this is how the speech in the Roman Senate of the Consul Cato the Elder always ended. The trick is to gradually and purposefully accustom the interlocutor to some unsubstantiated statement. Then, after repeated repetition, this statement is declared obvious.
2.9. Understatement with a hint of special motives
The essence of this trick is to demonstrate some significant understatement, to hint that in this case much more can be said, but this is not done for some special reason.
2.10. Link to authority
Recall that this trick "works" only when the authority referred to is really an authority. Otherwise, the trick may have the opposite effect. Interesting data are given by experts in assessing who the interlocutor trusts the most. In the first place, of course, trust in yourself. In second place is trust in a certain third party, and an authoritative one. Finally, the one he trusts the least is his opponent.
2.11. Accusation of utopian ideas
The trick is designed to force the partner to justify himself, to look for arguments against the accusation that his idea is unrealistic. Thanks to reasoning in defense of the proclaimed arguments, in fact, the main problem of the discussion is avoided. All this, as in many other cases, is extremely beneficial to the initiator of the trick.
2.12. Flattery or compliment
Flattering or complimentary turns of speech in terms of the strength of their impact on the human psyche are not inferior to any other trick. This is due primarily to the fact that, by influencing the subconscious of a person, they are capable of: delighting the opponent’s ears, weakening criticism addressed to them, and creating a much-needed atmosphere of recognition of human dignity. "We are all sensitive to compliments" - this is an absolutely fair thought, expressed at the time by A. Lincoln. But if a compliment can cause pleasant feelings in an interlocutor, then flattery by its nature can provoke a backlash. What is the essential difference between these concepts - "flattery" and "compliment"? However, in a complimentary statement like "It's clear why your husband is always in a hurry to go home" one can see a guess, a reflection on the merits of a woman, perhaps, and not only her appearance. So, the main differences between flattery and a compliment are , what:
- flattery is straightforward, unambiguous, simple and understandable, while a compliment presupposes discrepancy, reflection, during which the person himself conjectures the essence of what was said;
- the subject of flattery is people and their qualities, while the subject of a compliment is things, deeds, ideas, that is, everything that, as it were, indirectly relates to people;
- flattery implies an excessive exaggeration of the positive qualities of a person, attributing virtues that do not exist, but a compliment does not allow this, it only indirectly indicates that a person has a number of positive qualities.
Be careful when you hear flattery
Her weapon is evil and revenge,
Never trust her.
No wonder people say:
Flattery has a very warm look,
Yes, a heart of ice.
2.13. false shame
This trick consists in using a false argument against the opponent, which he is able to "swallow" without much objection. The trick can be successfully used in various kinds of judgments, discussions and disputes, including pedagogical ones. Calls like "You certainly know that science has now established ..." or "Of course you know that a decision has recently been made ..." or "You have certainly read about ..." put the opponent in a state of "false shame", when he is, as it were, ashamed to speak publicly about ignorance of those things that are being spoken about. In these cases, most people against whom this ploy is used nod or pretend to remember what is being said, thereby acknowledging all these, sometimes false, arguments.
2.14. False shame followed by reproach
This trick, like many others, is not aimed at the essence of the problem under discussion, but at the personality of the interlocutor, with belittling the opponent, humiliating his dignity, etc. An example of a trick is the statement "What, you didn't read this?" or "How, you are not familiar with these data" followed by the addition of a reproach like: "So what then to talk to you about?". The subsequent actions of the initiator of the trick are obvious: he either ends the discussion (which, in fact, is included in his plans), or continues to skillfully lead away from the discussion of the problem.
2.15. Humiliation by irony
This technique is effective when the dispute is unprofitable for some reason. You can disrupt the discussion of the problem, get away from the discussion by belittling the opponent with irony like "Sorry, but you are saying things that are beyond my understanding." Usually in such cases, the one against whom this trick is directed begins to feel a sense of dissatisfaction with what was said and, trying to soften his position, makes mistakes, but of a different nature.
2.16. Demonstration of resentment
This ploy is also intended to derail the argument, since a statement like "Who do you really take us for?" clearly demonstrates to the partner that the opposite side cannot continue the discussion, as they experience a feeling of obvious dissatisfaction, and most importantly, resentment for some ill-considered actions on the part of the opponent.
2.17. Authority of the statement
With the help of this trick, the psychological significance of the cited own arguments is significantly increased. This can be done effectively by witnessing like "I tell you authoritatively." Such a turn of speech by a partner is usually perceived as a clear signal of strengthening the significance of the arguments being expressed, and, therefore, as a determination to firmly defend one's position in the dispute.
2.18. Frankness of the statement
In this trick, the emphasis is on the special trust of communication, which is demonstrated with the help of such phrases as, for example, "I'll tell you right now (frankly, honestly) ...". This gives the impression that everything that was said before was not fully direct, frank or clear. As will be said by the initiator of the trick, and subsequently encourage the partner to respond in the same vein, i.e. also frankly, honestly and directly.
2.19. Double-entry bookkeeping
This trick is most popular in almost all situations of business communication. Its essence lies in the fact that the same arguments and arguments are recognized as convincing when they are expressed in defense of their position, and extremely unacceptable when they are expressed by the opponent. This technique corresponds to the well-known principle of the so-called Hottentot morality (the Hottentots are the ancient inhabitants of South Africa), according to which everything that corresponds to one’s own desires and views is considered true (true), and everything that contradicts them is considered false and incorrect.
2.20. Imaginary inattention
The name of this trick actually already speaks about its essence: they “forget”, and sometimes they deliberately do not notice the inconvenient and dangerous arguments of the opponent. Not to notice what can harm - this is the intention of the trick.
2.21. Imaginary misunderstanding and misunderstanding
The "cunning" of this technique lies in misinterpreting the arguments and arguments of the opponent, i.e., deliberately, for the sake of, of course, one's own interests, to present the partner's argument in a distorted form. This is easy to do with well-known listening techniques such as "listening-paraphrase" and "listening-summary". The essence of the first technique is to formulate the partner's thoughts in your own words, but already deliberately distorting the information, using phrases such as "So, you think ...", "In other words, you think ...", "According to your opinion ... ", etc. The essence of the second technique is to give the interlocutor a signal that you have caught the message in its entirety, and not some part of it (what was beneficial or wanted to be heard). In other words, with the help of summarizing, i.e., combining the partner’s thoughts into a single semantic field, using phrases like: “Summarizing what you said ...”, “So, as far as I understand, your main idea boils down to that ... ", you can consciously change the meaning of the ideas expressed by the partner and thereby realize the main idea of the trick.
2.22. Flattering turns of speech
The peculiarity of this trick is to "sprinkle the opponent with sugar of flattery", to hint to him how much he can win or, on the contrary, lose if he persists in his disagreement. An example of a flattering turn of speech is the statement: "As a smart person, you cannot help but see that ...".
2.23. It was smooth on paper, but forgot about the ravines
The name of this trick corresponds to a well-known old aphorism. Let us recall its essence. In past centuries, when planning a very important offensive military operation, mediocre "parquet" military leaders, it would seem, took everything into account: the time of day, the nature of the maneuver, and the route of movement of the troops. However, the calculation was carried out exclusively on the map, without reference to the terrain. In a real situation, the regiments had to move not on flat terrain and overcome all sorts of obstacles, in particular ravines. As a result of this, the army could not reach the lines of attack in time and was itself attacked and subsequently defeated. And so it happened: "it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines."
The use of this trick in a dispute, i.e. the statement that everything the partner says is good only in theory, but unacceptable in practice, will force him to prove the opposite with impromptu arguments, which in the end can inflame the atmosphere of discussion and reduce discussion to mutual attacks and accusations.
2.24. Reliance on a past statement
The key to this ploy is to draw the attention of the opponent to his past statement, which contradicts his reasoning in this dispute, and demand an explanation on this matter. Such clarifications can (if it is beneficial) lead the discussion to a dead end or provide information about the nature of the opponent's changed views, which is also important for the initiator of the trick.
2.25. Labeling
The main purpose of the trick is to provoke a response to the reproaches, accusations or insults made. The natural human reaction to accusations like "You are a liar", "You are a scoundrel", "You are a scoundrel" is to respond in kind, that is, to respond with a replica: "I hear from the same", "You yourself are like that" and etc. After the exchange of such "courtesies", of course, it is no longer necessary to talk about any confidential and constructive discussion.
2.26. Replacing Truth with Utility
At the heart of this trick is an important and quite obvious rule: when the benefit is clearly visible, it is difficult to discern the truth. Thus, the purpose of the trick is to convince the disputant that he owes his well-being precisely to the thesis that he disputes. To force the opponent to such thinking will help a statement like: "Have you really thought about how much the implementation of your idea will cost?".
2.27. Linguistic cosmetics
The essence of the trick is that the same idea is expressed in different ways, giving it the right shade. "Cosmetics" in this case can be different: from light, graceful, enveloping the object of thought like a thin veil, to excessive, when the "second house" where this thought moves in has nothing to do with the "first house". As is the case with a number of other tricks, this technique cannot be effectively applied without the listening methods described below ("paraphrase" and "summary").
2.28. Visible Support
The uniqueness of this trick lies in the fact that, having taken the floor from the opponent, come to his aid, i.e., begin to bring new arguments and evidence in defense of his thesis. This help is necessary only for the appearance (appearance) of supporting the opponent, because the purpose of the trick is the imaginary support of the opponent, aimed at reassuring him with consent, diverting attention, and also weakening his psychological confrontation. After the opponent loses vigilance and those around him will appreciate the level of awareness of the problem on the part of his opponent, the initiator of the trick delivers a powerful counterattack, known to psychologists as the "Yes, but ..." technique, which reveals the shortcomings of the thesis put forward by the opponent, demonstrates its inferiority . Thus, it seems that the opposite side is more familiar with the thesis being proved by the opponent than he himself, and after a thorough study of the problem, he was convinced of the inconsistency of this thesis and the entire system of argumentation given by the opponent.
2.29. Reduction of fact (argument) to personal opinion
The purpose of this trick is to accuse the communication partner of the fact that the arguments he cites in defense of his thesis or in refutation of the disputed thought are nothing more than just a personal opinion, which, like the opinion of any other person, can be wrong. Addressing the interlocutor with the words "What you are saying now is just your personal opinion" will involuntarily tune him to the tone of objections, give rise to the desire to challenge the opinion expressed about the arguments he has given. If the interlocutor succumbs to this trick, the subject of the controversy, contrary to his desire and for the sake of the intention of the initiator of the trick, shifts towards a discussion of a completely different problem, where the opponent will prove that the arguments he has expressed are not only his personal opinion. Practice confirms that if this happened, then the trick was a success.
2.30. Acceptable Argument Selection
This trick is based on the conscious selection of unilaterally directed information to prove any thought and operating in the process of conducting a discussion or dispute only with this information.
2.31. Rabulistika
This technique means deliberately distorting the meaning of the opponent's statements, presenting them as funny and strange. For example, a remark like "Your colleague agreed that ..." makes the perceiver react in a special way to this information. In other words, any exposure to rabulistics introduces the interlocutor into a state of far from constructive mood when discussing the problem, which, in turn, can cause an extremely negative defensive reaction in the form of indignation, accusation, or refusal to discuss.
2.32. Trojan horse
The gist of the trick is this:
- the disputant, using the already well-known method of "visible support", goes over to the side of the opponent in the dispute and begins to give additional arguments in defense of the thesis of his opponent;
- being "accepted on the side of the enemy" (because it is flattering for the opposite side to listen to the speeches of opponents in defense of their own position), the one who uses the trick skillfully distorts the main thesis and arguments of the partner beyond recognition;
- then he begins to defend this already distorted position, which has nothing in common with the original one. As a result, when the author of a compromised thesis catches on, it is already too late, since the opponent managed to deliver a "mortal blow" to both the thesis and the author's authority.
This method is especially effective after using the “visible support” technique, but only half implemented, i.e. when, having gone over to the side of the opponent, the initiator of the trick notes only the positive, positive aspects of the proposal (thesis) that his partner expresses. Then, introducing the rule “like begets like,” he invites the interlocutor to speak out about the positive aspects of his own judgment. The adversary usually does this without much difficulty, since he has just accepted the eulogies about his proposal. Having skillfully obtained such a response from his opponent, the use of the trick begins to successfully manipulate the opponent's just given arguments about the advantages and positive aspects of his project. The main thing at this final stage is, firstly, to keep the partner’s attention to the positive that he himself found in the arguments of his opponent until the end of the discussion; secondly, to prevent the opposite side from turning the discussion into a discussion of the positive aspects of their ideas and proposals.
2.34. Silence
The desire to deliberately withhold information from the interlocutor is the most commonly used ploy in any form of discussion. In competition with a business partner, it is much easier to simply hide information from him than to dispute it in polemics. The ability to competently hide something from your opponent is the most important component of the art of diplomacy. In this regard, we note that the professionalism of a polemist is just that, skillfully moving away from the truth, without resorting to lies.
2.35. half truth
This may mean mixing lies and reliable information; one-sided coverage of facts; inaccurate and vague wording of the provisions under discussion; references to sources with a disclaimer like: "I don't remember who said..."; distortion of a reliable statement with the help of: value judgments, etc. The method of half-truth, as practice shows, is most often used when it is necessary to get away from an undesirable turn of the dispute, when there are no reliable arguments, but it is imperative to challenge the opponent, when it is necessary, contrary to common sense, to persuade anyone to a certain conclusion.
2.36. Lie
This technique, as you know, is intended to hide the real state of affairs and convey false information to your partner, which can be presented in the form of fake documents, links to sources, experiments that no one has ever done, etc. In real life Perhaps there is no person who has not lied at least once. Let's not forget that in everyday business communication, each person is only as truthful as he is smart.
2.37. The stick and stick method
The idea of this trick is manifested in the problem-rhetorical questions asked to the opponent such as: "What is better for you to have: your own opinion, or everything else?", "What is more preferable for you - to object or not to suffer?". In other words, the threatening nature of this ploy forces the opponent to make a choice: remain principled, but at the same time suffer, or accept conditions, sometimes unacceptable, but at the same time be safe from threats, blackmail, and sometimes physical violence. The special meaning of this morally impermissible trick can be demonstrated by an interesting example from the famous novel by M. Puzo "The Godfather", where one of the heroes of the novel frankly shares the idea that much more can be done with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word.
2.38. Forcing a strictly unambiguous answer
The main thing in this trick is to firmly and resolutely demand from the opponent to give an unambiguous answer: “Say directly:“ yes ”or“ no ”, that is, consciously force him not to a dialectical answer (“and ... and”), but to alternative ("either ... or"). Experience confirms that this trick, as a rule, is resorted to when the detailed response of the opponent is highly undesirable. It should be noted that the trick is most effective in dealing with a poorly educated opponent, so as in most cases it will be perceived as a manifestation of integrity on the part of the partner.
2.39. What do you have against?
The essence of the technique is not to prove your stated thesis, that is, not to give reasons and arguments in its defense, but to offer (even demand) to refute it: "What, in fact, do you have against?" In the event that the opponent falls for the trick, he begins to criticize the put forward position, and the dispute (as planned by the initiator of the trick) begins to be waged already with respect to the opponent's counter-arguments. Thus, the user of the ruse deliberately moves away from proving his own thesis and concentrates the general attention on the opponent's counterarguments.
2.40. multiple questions
This trick consists in asking the opponent not one, but several, and different and little compatible with each other questions in one question. Then they act depending on the answers: either they are accused of not understanding the essence of the problem, or they are accused that the opponent did not fully answer the questions, misled or evaded the answer.
3. Logic tricks
This group of tricks is built on conscious violations of the laws and rules of formal logic, or vice versa, on their skillful use in order to manipulate an insufficiently informed opponent. Those who use these tricks, as A. Herzen aptly noted in his time, "do not like to enter the open field of logic, realizing that they will be defeated on it." The main tricks of this group are as follows.3.1. Thesis uncertainty
The essence of the trick is to vaguely and vaguely formulate your main thesis, this will allow the initiator of the trick to interpret the expressed thought in different ways. This technique is based on the violation of the most important law of formal logic - the law of identity. The wording and comments on it will be given in the next section of the manual.
3.2. Failure to comply with the law of sufficient cause
This is the case when the arguments, judgments, arguments are correct, but not sufficient. The formal-logical law of sufficient reason can be formulated as follows: every true thought must be sufficiently substantiated by arguments, and not only correctly constructed according to the laws of identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction. The essence of the trick is to violate such rules of argument as reliability, sufficiency and consistency. Their characteristics will be described in more detail in the next section of the manual.
3.3. Vicious circle in proof
This trick is designed to prove a thought with the help of its own, only said in other words, this is the "vicious circle" in the proof system.
3.4. Causal syllogism
The peculiarity of this trick is that the reasoning is deliberately based on a logical error: "after this, it means because of this." This sophism has been known since antiquity. Its essence lies in the fact that the temporal relationship between phenomena is consciously replaced by a causal one.
3.5. Incomplete rebuttal
The intent of the trick is to:
- from the stated system of arguments of the opponent to choose the most vulnerable;
- smash it in a sharp manner;
- pretend that all other arguments do not even deserve attention.
3.6. Wrong analogies
The characteristic feature of this trick is to use analogies in the proof that are absolutely disproportionate to those under consideration. Let's demonstrate this with a few examples. The first example is Plutarch's famous story about how a certain Roman, once divorcing his wife, after listening to the reproaches of friends who told him: "Why are you doing this? Isn't she chaste? Or not pretty? Or is she barren?" , put forward his foot, shod in a shoe, and asked: "Isn't he good? Or is he worn out? But who among you knows where he shakes my leg?" The second example can be taken from modern Russian politics, when democracy in Russia is compared to a girl and then asked: "Can you demand too much from a girl when she is still so young?" The third example of the illegality of analogies can be a comparison of the activities of our national parliament with a boat: "As soon as the deputies begin to row the 'left' oar, the entire parliament begins to turn to the 'right' and vice versa." Obviously, in the last two examples, the analogies are unjustified, since in one case the process of democratization is compared with the process of development of the female body, in the other, the activity of the parliament is likened to the actions of the physical laws of nature.
Introduction ____________________________________________________________2
General information about the dispute ___________________________________________3
Tricks in the dispute _________________________________________________6
Tactical techniques ______________________________________________ 12
Rules and errors in relation to the form of argumentation and criticism ____15
Conclusion ________________________________________________________ 16
List of References _______________________________________________17
Introduction
The dispute is of great importance in life, in science, in state and public affairs. Where there are no disputes about important, serious issues, there is stagnation. - Our time in Russia is especially rich in hot disputes of a public and political nature. The theory of the dispute is a completely undeveloped subject in modern science. Naturally, the first attempts to develop and popularize it cannot claim any completeness.
Initially, logic was developed in connection with the demands of the practice of jurisprudence and oratory. The connection of logic with these areas of human activity can be traced in ancient India, ancient Greece and
Rome. Thus, in the public life of ancient India, at a time when there was an interest in logic, discussions were a constant phenomenon. The well-known Russian orientalist academician V. Vasiliev writes about this: “If someone appears and begins to preach hitherto unknown ideas, they will not be alienated and persecuted without any trial: on the contrary, they will readily recognize them if the preacher of these days satisfies all objections and refutes old theories. They erected an arena for competition, chose judges, and during the dispute, kings, nobles and people were constantly present; determined in advance, regardless of the royal award, what should be the result of the dispute. If only two people were arguing, then sometimes the vanquished had to take his own life - throw himself into a river or from a cliff, or become a slave of the winner, go over to his faith. If it was a respected person, for example, who had reached the rank of a sovereign teacher and, consequently, possessed a huge fortune, then his property was often given to a poor man in rags who managed to challenge him. It is clear that these benefits were a great bait to direct the ambition of the Indians in this direction. But most often we see that the dispute was not limited to individuals, whole monasteries took part in it, which, due to failure, could suddenly disappear after a long existence. As you can see, the right of eloquence and logical proof was so undeniable in India that no one dared to evade the challenge to the dispute.
Judicial and political discussions were common in Ancient
Greece. Often the judgment depended on the logical proof of the speech of the accused or accuser. No artificial tricks, no eloquence can help, if there are no well-founded ideas and convincing evidence.
General information about the dispute
1. Before talking about the dispute and its features, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the evidence at least in the most general terms. After all, an argument is about evidence. One proves that such and such an idea is true, the other that it is erroneous. That thought, to substantiate the truth or falsity of which a proof is built, is called the proof thesis. All evidence must revolve around it. She is the ultimate goal of our efforts. That is why the first requirement from a person embarking on a serious argument or dispute is to clarify the controversial thought, to clarify the thesis.
2. Three necessary and sufficient points in clarifying the thesis: a) all the concepts that are unclear to us, included in it; b) its "quantity" c) "modality".
a) If the meaning of a word in the thesis is not quite clear and distinct, then it is necessary to "define" this "word" or concept. There are two practical ways to do this:
1) define the concept on your own; 2) use ready-made foreign definitions.
The second way is more preferable. As a source of definition, you can use the encyclopedia or other scientific literature. You should not trust what "once read about it", definitions should be reasonably memorized. It should be remembered that the same concept can have several definitions.
b) For clarity and distinctness of thinking, it is necessary to know whether we are talking about only one object, or about all objects of a given class without exception, or not about all, but about some (most, many, almost all, several, etc.). Sometimes it is necessary to find out whether the attribute that is attributed to it is always characteristic of the object, or not always. Without this, too, thought is often unclear. The elucidation of this point is called the elucidation of the judgment (and hence the thesis) in terms of "quantity." Where the "quantity" of a thesis is unclear, the thesis is said to be indefinite in quantity.
c) Then we need to find out what kind of judgment we consider the thesis to be undoubtedly true, certain and undoubtedly false, or only more or less probable, very probable, simply probable, etc. Or does a refuted, for example, the thesis seem to us only possible : there are no arguments for it, but there are no arguments against it. Again, depending on all this, one has to give different methods of proof.
It may seem that such a clarification takes too much time and this waste is unnecessary. In fact, the time spent figuring it out always pays off, often a hundredfold. Sometimes it happens that one has only to clarify the thesis, as it becomes obvious that there is nothing to argue about.
1. In order to prove the truth or falsity of the thesis, we give other thoughts, the so-called arguments or grounds for proof. These should be such thoughts: a) which are considered true not only by ourselves, but also by the person or people to whom we are proving, and b) from which it follows that the thesis is true or false.
2. Each important argument in the proof must be considered separately and also clarified - just as to find out how we clarified the thesis. This work protects against a lot of mistakes and a significant waste of time. - Do not trust "first sight" and think that it is not required to find out.
3. Errors in proofs are mainly of three kinds: a) either in the thesis, b) or in the arguments, in the grounds, or c) in the connection between the arguments and the thesis, in "reasoning". Errors in the thesis consist in the fact that we undertook to prove one thesis, but in fact we have proved or are proving another. This error is called a departure from the thesis. It happens that a person sees that he cannot defend or prove a thesis, and deliberately replaces it with another so that the enemy does not notice. This is called thesis substitution. It also happens that a person has forgotten his thesis. This will be the loss of the thesis, etc.
4. Errors in arguments are most often two: a) a false argument, b) an arbitrary argument. False argument - when someone relies on an obviously false thought. An arbitrary argument is one that, although not obviously false, still itself requires proper proof.
5. Finally, the errors in the "connection" between the grounds and the thesis ("in reasoning") consist in the fact that the thesis does not follow, does not follow from the grounds, or is it not clear how it follows from them.
6. What are the errors in reasoning, logic teaches in more detail.
It should also be noted that the main types of disputes are:
- Constructive
- destructive
- Oral
- Writing
- Organized
- Spontaneous
The conditions for starting a dispute are:
- The presence of at least two parties having an individual view on the subject of the dispute.
- The presence of disagreements among the disputing parties and personal interest in resolving these disagreements.
- The willingness of the disputants to argue and the presence of arguments of varying degrees of persuasiveness on each side.
In relation to the arguments of the opponent, a good debater must avoid two extremes:
he should not persist when either the argument of the opponent is obvious, or obviously correctly proved;
he should not agree too easily with the argument of the opponent, if this argument seems to him correct.
Let's consider the first case. To persist if the opponent's argument is immediately "obvious" or proven with undoubted evidence is inappropriate and harmful to the disputant. It is clear that a person does not have enough courage and honesty and love for the truth to confess a mistake. In private disputes, excessive stubbornness sometimes reaches the point that it turns into the so-called "donkey stubbornness." The defender of his mistake begins to pile up such incredible arguments in favor of her that it becomes ridiculous for the listener. Unfortunately, such stubbornness is found even in scientific disputes. However, if the dispute is important and serious, it is a mistake to accept the arguments of the opponent without the most vigilant caution. Here, as in many serious cases, it is necessary to "try on seven times and cut off one." It often happens that the argument of the opponent seems to us at first very convincing and irrefutable, but then, after thinking it over properly, we are convinced that it is arbitrary or even false. Sometimes the consciousness of this comes even in a dispute. But the argument has already been accepted, and we have to "take back consent to it" - which always produces an unfavorable impression on the listeners and can be used to our detriment, especially to a dishonest, impudent opponent. Therefore, the more serious the dispute, the greater our caution and exactingness should be in order to agree with the arguments of the enemy. The measure of this exactingness and caution for each individual case is "common sense" and a special "logical tact". They help decide whether a given argument is clearly valid and does not require further verification, or whether it is better to wait with agreement to it. If an argument seems to us very convincing and we can find no objection to it, but caution nevertheless requires us to put aside agreement with it and first think about it better, then we usually resort to three methods to get out of the difficulty. He began to get personal and only try to offend, he lost the argument.
1. The most direct and honest - conditional acceptance of the argument. "I accept your argument conditionally. Let's assume for the time being that it is true. What other arguments do you want to give?" With such a conditional argument, the thesis can only be proved conditionally: if this argument is true, then the thesis is also true.
A trick in an argument is every technique by which they want to make the argument more difficult for the opponent and make it easier for themselves.
One of the most common types of tricks is considered to be "putting off an objection." In the event that the opponent gives an argument to which it is difficult to object, some dishonest polemicists raise questions in response to the question asked, as if thereby clarifying its essence. At the same time, they often start from afar, with something that may not even relate to the case materials. After the thought is formulated in the head, such polemicists bring it down on the opponent.
Most often, this “procrastination of objection” is used in order to hide one’s nervous tension from the enemy and not show one’s weakness.
But it must be borne in mind that such polemists in disputes resort not only to this, but also to other tricks, disguising them with arguments, etc.
S. I. Povarnin considers the most impermissible crude tricks:
- stick arguments;
- argument to the policeman;
- disruption of the dispute;
- wrong exit from the dispute.
Obstruction (disruption of the dispute). Sometimes an opponent may be interested in disrupting an argument that is beyond his power. In this case, they often resort to mechanical crude tricks, interrupting the opponent, not allowing him to speak, or show that they do not intend to continue to participate in a senseless argument.
Conclusion to the mayor. There are cases when, by declaring the opponent's theses unacceptable or dangerous to society or the state, the opponent's mouth is "shut down". In this case, the dispute ends with the victory of the one who applied this trick.
Stick arguments. An argument is often made that the adversary is obliged to accept for fear of the consequences, which may be his silence on some important question or the search for a new answer.
In this art of controversy, there are three main aspects that determine the outcome: language, psychology and logic.
The first is especially important, since everything is carried, speaks and is expressed to the listeners with the help of speech. Usually, language constructs are sought that would act on the listener, directing him in the desired direction.
- The most effective way of persuasion is considered to be persuasion with facts, but they must also be presented correctly. After all, one and the same things can be told from different points of view, revealing certain concepts. It all depends on what kind of language means we select and what methods of speech we use.
- In some cases, in the absence of facts to convince, everything is reduced to absurdity.
- The Socratic way - they ask questions that automatically put the opponent in the position of a positive answer until the confused opponent agrees with the opponent on an important issue that he has been arguing up to this minute.
- Also in the controversy, the “energy of speech” is very important - its tonal and expressive variability. With the help of various rhetorical tricks, our feeling can be put into action. And the more sensitive they are, the louder our emotions begin to speak in us, forming various experiences. Without them, we seem to be deaf to the words addressed to us. At the same time, it is necessary to evoke not just a feeling, but a real storm of emotions, thereby knocking the enemy out of his train of thought.
These psychological tricks are quite diverse in nature and are based on a good knowledge of the weaknesses of human nature. They show a disrespectful and rude attitude towards the opponent. For example, they include:
- "Greasing the argument" is a trick that is based on self-esteem. At the same time, a weak argument that is easily compromised is disputed with harsh criticism of the one who presented it;
- Bet on false shame;
- Disequilibrium;
- Cause distrust of the words of the enemy;
- The desire to interrupt the speech of the opponent;
- The desire to put him in a bad light, etc.
Logical tricks are also called sophisms. These are intentional errors in the proof. It must be remembered that error and sophism differ from each other in that error is not intended, while sophism is intended. Therefore, for every mistake, as a rule, there is a sophism invented.
Taking the conversation to the side. It consists in translating the dispute into contradictions between deed and word. It is also possible to leave aside the thesis, avoiding its discussion, with the help of such sophism - the translation of the dispute into contradictions between deed and word, the way of life and the views of the opponent.
Thus, by showing the inconsistency of the opponent's thesis, you can put the opponent in an uncomfortable position for him and reduce the entire dispute to nothing.
Translation of the question into the point of view of harm or benefit. Here, instead of proving the truth of a certain position, it turns out whether it has a benefit for the opponent or not. If a person understands that such a position is beneficial for him, while it can also have bad consequences for other people, he agrees with him.
Unscrupulous polemicists often take advantage of this, starting to put pressure on the opponent and emphasize to him the advantages of their own position. These arguments are often called "pocket". Also, sometimes the parties in the process of reasoning can shift the time of the action and make some substitution of events in time. The most commonly used in the dispute is the so-called "answer with a question to a question."
Having difficulty in finding the right answer or not wanting to answer the opponent's question, the opponent may raise another counter question. And if his opponent starts responding to him, the trick worked.
In addition, such unfortunate polemicists often resort to the trick of "answering on credit." At the same time, experiencing difficulties in discussing the problem, they can postpone the answer to the future, referring to the greater complexity of the issue.
The ability to correctly recognize all the tricks and show exactly what they were used for is one of the main qualities of a successful polemicist.
A ship at a crossroads: the commissioning of the Ivan Gren large landing ship is not a dot, but an ellipsis ... Landing ship Ivan Gren of project 11711
How the USSR fought in Angola
International relations on the eve of World War II