Making Arguments Stronger
We have a number of suggestions for making arguments stronger. You will notice that almost all of our advice for improving the quality of arguments comes directly from explicit or implicit standards embodied in the four criteria. More specific recommendations for strengthening arguments are made in the sections on individual fallacies throughout the rest of the text (which you shall have to buy if you want to get them).
- Find ways to give additional support to weak or questionable premises.
- Substitute less controversial premises if they will do the job required.
- Add additional or missing premises if needed to give sufficient grounds for the conclusion.
- Soften, if necessary, any absolute claims made in the premises in a way that might make them more acceptable.
- Restate premises in their clearest and most economical form.
- Spell out any implicit premises that have important roles in the argument.
- Recast the argument in a more orderly form so that it can be followed more easily.
- Declare which are the weakest points in the argument, not only to demonstrate your objectivity but also to blunt the force of your opponent's counterfire.
- Clear up any vague or confusing language used.
- Take out irrelevant matters that tend to clutter the argument.
- Introduce as much deductive character to the argument as the subject matter will allow.
- Be as exhaustive in your rebuttal as the context calls for.
Some arguments, of course cannot be improved upon, not because they are good enough already, but because they defend views for which no good arguments are likely to be found. Our commitment to search for truth demands that we not spend time and energy trying to make a hopelessly weak or bad argument a trifle less weak-unless, of course, we are attorneys who are required by our profession to give the best defense possible in the service of our clients.
Constructing Good Arguments
Our involvement in the process of
evaluating arguments encourages the construction of good arguments by constantly
reminding us of the criteria of a good argument. Just as a prosecutor or defense
attorney gets a clear picture of what the law requires by participating in the
process of dealing with those who violate it, one can come to understand what is
required of good arguments by becoming sensitive to the great number of ways
that they can go wrong. Moreover, in many cases, a criticism of an argument is
an implicit construction of a better argument for the same view or a different
argument for an alternative view. The very process of evaluating is therefore
constructive.
The first step in the construction of an argument is to make
very clear just what claim is being defended. Don't let your audience become
confused about your stand on the issue. Moreover, don't confuse your arguments.
If you have more than one argument for your position, don't mix them together
into one big argument. Separate the arguments so that if one of them turns out
to be a weak one, it will not affect the strength of the others.
Set forth the strongest evidence you have in support of your
conclusion and articulate all premises that may not be obvious. It would also be
a good idea to put your premises in some order of importance, so that your
audience knows which are your strongest supports. You might even mention which
are your weaker or less important premises, thus disarming a critic's likely
attack on those more vulnerable points.
Ask the same questions of your own arguments that you might
ask of any opponent's argument, and make whatever adjustments are necessary to
render your arguments invulnerable to attack. You should be sure that all of
your premises are relevant to the conclusion; you should be especially careful
to use only acceptable premises; you should be acquainted enough with the
context to know what constitutes sufficient grounds to support your conclusion;
and you should be prepared to provide an effective rebuttal to the strongest
challenges to your position. You might even specify the kind of evidence that
would weaken or possibly falsify your position. This device would have the
effect of strengthening your position if no such evidence could be produced by
your critics. Do not neglect to qualify, or at least admit possible exceptions
to, your claims. Failure to qualify claims is a fault of many otherwise good
arguments. Finally, if your self criticism exposes a serious flaw in your
argument, and corrective surgery does not seem to eliminate the problem, you
should be willing to abandon the claim gracefully.
Constructing a good argument for a position on an issue in
dispute is a giant step forward toward coming to agreement or resolving
disagreement. However, one of the hardest tasks in rational discussion is that
of knowing when and how to end a discussion and to consider an issue settled.
The Resolution Principle
An issue should be considered resolved if the proponent for one of the alternative positions successfully defends that position by presenting an argument that uses relevant and acceptable premises that together provide sufficient grounds to support the conclusion and provides an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or position at issue. Unless one can demonstrate that these conditions have not been met, one should accept the conclusion of the successful argument and consider the issue, for all practical purposes, to be settled. In the absence of a successful argument for any of the alternative positions, one is obligated to accept the position that is supported by the best of the good arguments presented.
If the purpose of rational discussion
is ultimately to decide what to do or believe, then coming to closure should
happen more often than it does. There are many good arguments out there, and if
what we have suggested as appropriate principles of rational discussion really
have merit, then we should be resolving issues much more frequently than we do.
For example, since the flag burning amendment argument above was found to be a
good one, should that not settle the issue? Other issues, such as the effect of
cigarette smoking on health, the creationism / evolution debate, and questions
of gender and race bias should also be settled. The arguments have been made,
and they are good ones. but the debates go on. How much more discussion is
needed, just because some refuse to recognize the force of a successful
argument?
Unfortunately, very few controversial issues ever come to a
rational resolution. If you have doubts about this, then ask yourself when was
the last time you allowed the force of argument to change your mind about an
important issue-even though changing one's mind in the face of a successful
argument should not be a difficult thing to do for a genuine truth-seeker.
So why does it not happen? Why are issues not resolved?
Probably there are a number of reasons. It could be that one of the parties to
the dispute has a blind spot, that is, he or she simply cannot be objective
about the particular issue at hand. Or maybe he or she has been rationally but
not psychologically convinced by the discussion. Another possible explanation is
that one or more of the parties in the dispute have been rationally careless or
at least guilty of not thinking as clearly as they should. It is even possible
that one of the parties has a hidden agenda-an issue to defend other than the
stated one. Or maybe the parties involved are simply not being honest with
themselves, for they may want to win the argument more than they want to find a
solution to the problem. Finally, perhaps the parties are in what might be
called "deep disagreement"; that is, they are divided on the issue because of
fundamental underlying assumptions that have yet to be explored.
Unfortunately, none of these explanations is a justification
for not resolving our disputes. Indeed, each explanation rests on an
identifiable feature or uncritical thinking or is a violation of at least one of
the principles in the code of intellectual conduct to which we should be
rationally committed.
It is possible, of course, that some matters are left
unresolved for more respectable reasons. Perhaps the evidence available is
regarded as presently too skimpy to lead to a conclusion on the matter, or
perhaps one of the parties is still looking for an effective counterargument
that he 0r she thinks is out there to be found. There may even remain serious
disagreement over whether an argument presented has indeed been successful.
These are all reasons that may make one less confident in
adopting the conclusion of one of the arguments presented, but since few
arguments are ever found to be totally successful, one is obligated to accept the
position that is supported by the best of the good or near-successful arguments
presented. Otherwise, since one can always claim that there has been no absolute
proof presented, one could leave unresolved forever virtually every issue
discussed. Besides, we have tried to show that there are objective criteria
available to determine the quality of an argument. Judges and juries do it
routinely, and there is no reason why the rest of us cannot do it as well. We
are not saying that there is one monolithic logic to which all discussion
participants must bow down; we are simply saying that there are more objective
ways of evaluating arguments than some are willing to admit.
The Suspension Of Judgment Principle
If no position comes close to being successfully defended, or if two or more positions seem to be defended with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue. If practical considerations seem to require an immediate decision, one should weigh the relative risks of gain or loss connected with the consequences of suspending judgment and decide the issue on those grounds.
Some issues, of course, do not permit suspension of judgment. If the decision is a forced or momentous one, such as deciding whether to have an abortion, one has to decide on the grounds of the practical consequences of not making the decision.
The Reconsideration Principle
If a successful or at least good argument for a position is subsequently found by any participant to be flawed in a way that raises new doubts about the merit of that position, one is obligated to reopen the issue for further consideration and resolution.
No argument may be regarded as
permanently successful. There is always the possibility that new evidence will
come to light that will raise new doubts about a position held on what where
thought to be good grounds. Under these conditions, further examination is
always appropriate. Pride in good or successful arguments past should not become
an obstacle to reopening the issue in the present if conditions warrant it. The
principles of fallibility and truth-seeking are as important at this point as
they were in the original inquiry.
The new doubts, however, should not be the same old doubts in
new clothing. Reopening the issue should come only as a consequence of
uncovering new or reinterpreted evidence not considered in the earlier treatment
of the issue. Otherwise, the reexamination of the issue is the worst form of the
violation of the resolution principle-simply a device to continue to haggle over
the same ground.
["Attacking Faulty Reasoning", By T. Edward Damer]