The nature of discourse and argument Part 1

The term argument leads a double life. In common usage it means to fight about or to disagree, usually loudly, and sometimes with thrown objects. However in the formal sense of logic it means the discussion or addressing of a topic. Now these should be easily distinguished; I am having an argument with my wife versus the argument is lacking in rigor. But for the sake of ease in reading, I will use argument in the logical sense only and use disagreement or fight for the other while writing this post, and most probably this blog.

It is common and natural to differ in opinion with others, sometimes these differences are about personal preference, other times they are about the state of the world. One type has a clear right and wrong answer, the other does not. Any claims about the nature of reality are expressions that a set of information is true. This is a Truth claim. It is only these things, and then only when they are well established, for which the term fact should be used. It may be a fact that you dislike peanut butter but it is not a fact that peanut butter tastes bad, that is an opinion. However, as I have come into more direct contact, and therefore disagreement with, various people it seems that this is not as universally accepted as one would think. Maybe my peanut butter claim would be accepted, but the rule for which that is but an example often is ignored as passions flair when people are fighting about a topic that they actually care about. In a truly formal setting you might have the leisure to define all your terms before you use them. To say that in this context the word argument will mean only one thing, for instance. But in normal conversation this is rarely, if ever, the case. This does not mean that you should not attempt to formulate a clear definition during the discourse. There are times when I found friends in heated debate over some matter or other, only to discover that they in fact agreed when terms were clarified. The other advantages of seeking a clear definition is that it wont allow your argument to be derailed for purely semantic reasons, and it will not allow someone to use multiple definitions of a term, either so that it better suits a given argument (dishonestly) or because they are not clear themselves by what they mean. If someone objects to your trying to make certain a term, it is good to ask for their motivations. They may in fact be hiding behind a mess and resist clarity as harmful because it will expose them. More likely they are objecting to the particular way that you view a term. Here you can offer another synonymous word in place and of course allow them to construct a counter definition. But then you must both do your best to stick to the new terms given. This may be difficult, as in your head you are used to using the old label, but if you can attempt the translation then you will be one step closer to getting into the real debate about things that matter, and can stop getting caught up by simple terms of disagreement.

My apologies to those who are passionate about the legume mentioned above.