Fishy argumentation

[James_S_Saint]

…and anyone caught violating the doctrine must read a popular Science magazine from cover to cover if Catholic, or say 50 “Hail Mary”'s if not.

 

[Shredderbeam]

In my few months on this forum, I have seen far too much simpletonism. This is a word I coined, meaning roughly: the belief that all possible information proves your point. Nothing is that simple. To every point, there is a counterpoint – and sometimes your “opponent” makes a valid point.

When your opponent makes a valid point, you should:

• Acknowledge the point, even compliment them.
• If it is not crucial to the argument, explain why it is not crucial.
• If it is crucial to the argument, either a) try to defeat their point, or b) admit that you have no better argument.

The fact that you have no better argument does not necessarily make your “opponent” right. The truth is not affected by our opinions about the truth.

When your opponent makes a valid point, you should not:

• Change the subject, without acknowledging what they said.
• Display your own ignorance, by pretending their point was trivial and/or mocking them
• Ignore the fact that another person spoke, and keep spouting off your own monologic viewpoints (I just made up the word “monologic” as well).

The goal of philosophic conversation is wisdom and enjoyment. When we fail to “be on our best behavior”, we cause other people stress and annoyance.

(And Christians: remember Paul’s admonition that we are to be “the aroma of Christ” to unbelievers. Have you marinated in the Word lately?)

I agree with you wholeheartedly, and “Simpletonism” needs to be added to the dictionary as quickly as possible.