[i习作temp] issue 一篇求大神赐教，不知道可不可以像这样用搅理的方法来写 [复制链接]

Crux317
UID：2640246

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 60
注册时间: 2009-5-14
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2011-12-31 01:38:44 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 Crux317 于 2011-12-31 01:42 编辑

Claim: The best test of anargument is its ability to convince someone with an

opposing viewpoint.

Reason: Only by being forced todefend an idea against the doubts and contrasting

views of others does one reallydiscover the value of that idea.

Write a response in which youdiscuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with

the claim and the reason onwhich that claim is based.

Nations

Ina world full of plausible arguments and claims, how to verify which one is the truth and which one is only bogus? A well-recognized method is to test whether the argument can convince its rivals with an opposing viewpoint. It sounds a self-proved statement if no one question on that method. But on the other hand, to prove its validity this method has to convince any skeptic point on it, or the method will contradicts to itself.

A commonly proposed reason for that claim is that only after several runs of attacking anddefending on it, the true value of the original idea can be present to both sides and by-standers. It is looks reasonable as many arguments are masked by various decoration of words, which distort its original face. Its supporters are hard to identify which part is the element and which parts are only conclusions induced from the core idea. But one holding the opposing viewpoint can easily identify and rip off those camouflages, and force the supporters to pick up their basic idea and defend it. In this case, the argument has no grey space to rest itself, it can be either valid or invalid. A cogent argument can always stand on because it is based on the right side, while questioning argument will easily throne down. That is clear in the eyes of by-standers.
But such condition rarely happens in real world. Rather than efface the fog around the arguments, the rival side is often not patient to review the argument carefully,but instead to throw out questions leading the debate to nowhere. That kind of actioncan only add more puzzles on the original argument. If the supporters rise upfor defense emotionally, the final result will be a dog-fight on trivial issues not really related to the core idea, which should be the main target of thetest. Such scenes are common in college debate competitions and even in parliamentary meetings, either by less of consciousness or intention.
Rational people may avoid such problem when employing the method to verify the argument, but what they can not avoid is the basic logic fault inside: This method can only be used when dichotomy of the views is possible. In that case the opposing side can be convinced to accept the argument, or the argument is failed to reach that convince due to its intrinsic defect, and hence being rejected. But what if both side of the debate are right? What if the simple dichotomy is not suitable on the topic? The supporters of the idea can never turn down the opposing idea,and if they are rational enough they will find they have to concede both ways are correct or both are wrong in the roots. And finally they may have a cynicview on their original idea or just mute on it, that results are quite common and remarkable when we review the history of contemporary philosophy.
As mentioned inthe beginning, the test of proving one’s idea by convincing its rivals is either self-proved, or fragile in the face of any skeptic point on it. Maybe I also make a false dichotomy here when try to convince my dear readers, but hope my defeat to be a paradox disapprove of the claim.