argument construction

[story645]

In math, to prove something can be quite hard. You need to do a full proof, by induction, contradiction, logic, any number of methods, and even then, most of the time it's called a theorem, which means proven but not absolutely. There are only a handful of laws in math. Science is much the same. To prove something, you need lots of experiments and

Comments

[greensweaterlj]

Dude, that's a cool entry. (And therefore I am commenting. Go me. Or go you. Whatever.)

Still, I would never undervalue a counterargument. They can work as effectively as in math. But then, literature is as much like life as it can be, and in life things are often the opposite of maths "ideals", like perfect circles, and rarely absolute. I can still be generous if I kept an icecream for myself in kindergarten.

Hmm.

What was the silly little theory with the disregarded counterexamples about?

[story645]

So all my other entries aren't cool? ;)

Logical arguments tend to force subjectivity into models of order, so yeah the counter-argument works with respect to the logical side of lit analysis. Actually the sciences are fun cause when we first learn theory, everything is perfect and frictionless and dissolves completely and whatever else.

http://community.livejournal.com/hptheories/403558.html?style=mine

[emelye916]

Such an interesting entry! I think the rules of constructive and logical argumentation/debate apply no matter the subject matter. Sure, in math and science, there are absolute laws while subjective theories are another thing altogether. Still, arguing ABOUT them still rely on the same theories of validity.

The thing that drives me crazy is when I make a statement, wanting to debate it, but I can't seem to come up with any good examples at the moment. I throw one out there, knowing it's imperfect (and often stating that fact) and people still grab onto the details of the example instead of arguing the theory as a whole. Sometimes I just want to discuss big topics without the finer details, but I guess you have to make that very very clear to the people you want to get involved.

[story645]

But see, the thing is that your example proves the point, so example invalid equals theory invalid, which is why people jump on your examples. Yeah, it can get incredibly nitpicky, but that's still how it works.

[dome36]

Chana

[story645]

*snort* Scientific method applies to everything.

It's actually one of the best ways to approach things cause it's so methodical, and you end up with built in structure, and you learn the flaws of your argument. Just cause it didn't work for her, it doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

[story645]

*lol* You're not dumb. I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say with this post. :p

Basically, you're saying that examples help support your theory, but they're not the actual arguments, right?
Basically theory=thesis, examples are part of the body paragraphs. Just like the thesis rests on the bp's (you knock out a pb, you knock out the thesis) same the theories and their examples.

[story645]

Example cause it's clearer:
Theorem: All numbers in the set x^3 are positive integers.
Ex: 2^3 = 8
False, because any negative integer raised to the third power is negative.

Ok, so that's a standard mathematical proof. The example disproves the theorem, so the theorem is false. I think that we do the same all the time in lit. Someone posts the theory and examples, and we either show why the examples are false or just do counter examples to disprove the theorem.

I don't think anything about how people should do anything. As long as you counter the hinge point of the argument, it doesn't really matter. But that's what it all boils down to. If an example is a hingepoint, then that's what people will crit. If something else is the hinge point, people will go at the something else.