"conflict" resolution style versus his contribution to technology. And
I could add many names from history/economic development that
discarded drawing room manners for sheer autocracy-
belligerance,included. Religion has been concerned with an alternative
to real life that the masses could cling to. There is a happy medium.
On Dec 17, 4:00 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have rules on ad hominem and such in here. It's only one example
> of an "ad" and in general such stuff is regarded as fallacy. More
> recent work on argument tends to say we need to recognise what kind of
> argument we are in as the rules vary in different forms. One form of
> argument is called eristic and its aim is to reveal deep divisions. Ad
> hom may be allowable in that. I'm writing a paper for a conference
> based on the notion that religion has a deep and generally malevolent
> influence in human behaviour - which has an implicit ad hom - that
> general religious stuff is the province of a kind of cowardice (there
> are lots of examples from the other side of course - such as atheists
> being immoral).
> The main book I've been reading is by Walton (below) and a digest
> might be as follows:
>
> Dialogue types:
> Dialogue Type Initial Situation Participant's Goal Goal of Dialogue
> Persuasion Conflict of Opinion Persuade Other Party Resolve Issue
> Inquiry Need to Have Proof Verify Evidence Prove Hypothesis
> Discovery Need for Explanation Find a Hypothesis Support Hypothesis
> Negotiation Conflict of Interests Secure Interests Settle Issue
> Information Need Information Acquire Information Exchange Information
> Deliberation Practical Choice Fit Goals and Actions Decide What to Do
> Eristic Personal Conflict Attack an Opponent Reveal Deep Conflict
>
> What informal logic is seeking to explain and use:
> 1.an account of the principles of communication which argumentative
> exchange depends upon;
> 2. a distinction between different kinds of dialogue in which argument
> may occur, and the ways in which they determine 3.appropriate and
> inappropriate moves in argumentation (e.g. the difference between
> scientific discussion and negotiation);
> 4. an account of logical consequence, which explains when it can be
> said (and what it means to say) that some claim (or attitude) is a
> logical consequence of another;
> 5. a typology of argument which provides a framework of argument and
> analysis by indentifying the basic types of argument that need to be
> distinguished (deductivism is monistic, hence one of the simplest
> typologies; others will distinguish between fundamentally different
> kinds of argument);
> 6. an account of good argument which specifies general criteria for
> deductive, inductive, and conductive arguments;
> definitions of positive argument schema which define good patterns of
> reasoning (reasonable appeals to authority, reasonable attacks against
> the person; etc.);
> 7. some theoretical account of fallacies and the role they can (and
> cannot) play in understanding and assessing informal arguments;
> 8. an account of the role that audience (pathos) and ethos and other
> rhetorical notions should play in analysing and assessing argument;
> 9. an explanation of the dialectical obligations that attach to
> arguments in particular kinds of contexts.
>
> Walton, Douglas N., 2007. Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation,
> Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
>
> What I'm seeking to establish is that economics and economic behaviour
> as we have it is a form of religious madness and uses religious
> coercion to get us to play its games. I actually believe this but
> want to do more than just assert the position. I'm not concerned to
> dismiss religion but rather demonstrate the dangerous madness of
> "economics" as a religious practice and threat to democracy
>
> In a crude sense one must bow to religious madness to take part in its
> fellowship. My contention is that economics works in the same way -
> under the maths belief in talking snakes is implied. The driving
> question is what a scientific economics might be and how this might be
> a moral matter because truth dialogue in science is not value-free but
> moral. In the context of history, religion has often been concerned
> with economics and particularly freedom from debt. What I'm searching
> for is something that breaks religion and politics from the dominance
> of power-interests and perhaps rediscovers more reasonable
> spirituality.
>
> It would help if I could build a truth-pattern analyser! Comments
> appreciated. Judging on the current draft I don't know what I'm
> talking about yet!
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário