ISSUE 79 这篇的题干比较怪啊

dshen3UID: 3323420

ISSUE 79
Claim: The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint

Reason: Only by being forced to defend an idea against the doubts and contrsting views of others does one really discover the value of that idea.


One argument always faces the opposition from its antithesis. While some may embrace the point of view that only by being forced to defend such argument or idea against the doubts and contrasting views of others can one really discover the value of that argument or idea, I suspect the effect that convincing those with an opposing viewpoint the validity of a certain idea could truly achieve anything.

First of all, the value of an idea consists in how consistent it is with the reality. Ideas proved valuable to us are usually very pragmatic, that is, when they are applied to the reality, it is quite able to solve some problems. I highly doubt the opinion that the legitimacy of an idea lies in its ability to convince others with different views, because even though those people are convinced and decide finally to agree with you, your idea may still be inaccurate. The battle between ideas could hardly reach solid conclusion. For instance, at the beginning of 20th century, the genius physicist Albert Einstein came up with the idea that light can be bent when it travels past an star with enough gravity, which was disapproved by major physicist at the time. However, only after such phenomenon was indeed observed through telescope in a moon eclipse later did the Einstein new idea about the space and substance firmly establish. I don't think it would have added any merit to Einstein's theory if he had kept persuading his colleagues to take his new idea.

Secondly, not a few people build their ideas according to hearsays they grab off from media. They may hold diametrically different ideas about the same phenomena, but this doesn't necessarily equate with that they really know about the phenomena and why they choose this stance but not the opposite. At most, they just follow the majority and unfortunately under many occasions they are not critical of their ideas. To take these factors into our consideration, I don't think it will shed any light into the phenomena as well as bring any more value to our own idea if we are able to convince them how wrong and ridiculous their idea might be. Beating down a weak and unorganized enemy doesn't honor us.

To sum up, if we are really serious about the ideas we support, we should care more about their accuracy in reality rather than attach excessive importance to whether it could beat down the ideas of our rivals. If they do succeed in debate, we are still ought to be careful that sometimes it is the eloquence of our oratory rather than the inherent validity of the idea that helps us win the fight. On the other hand, if we fail to convince our opponent of the rationality of our ideas, it doesn't discredit our ideas immediately. The impervious defense of one idea doesn't inevitably lead to the consistency of it. Above all, only the reality instead of human's mouth is able and authoritative to evaluate a certain idea.