A person is violating the principle of rational discussion when it seems as if they do not comprehend
what is reasonable, they are deliberately misleading, or it is not an argument at all. An example would be relevance. Relevance is the observation of the premise not being relevant to the conclusion in an argument. This causes the argument to be weak and unrepairable.
For example one of my coworkers was trying to explain to me what had happen while I was gone. She was talking so fast that her conclusion was unrelated to her testimony.
Maria: Someone got in a car accident on the driveway and my eye was bothering me, so I thought I could just leave early.
Me: What does the accident and your eye have to do with you leaving early?
Other instances of violation are:
Begging the Question- The premises being more plausible than the conclusion.
Strawman- "Putting words in the other person's mouth."
Shifting the burden of proof- Asking for someone to repudiate your statement rather than proving it yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment