How to effectively argue

Dear readers, have you ever found yourselves puzzled by the following: With the internet awash in a deluge of information, where false information runs rampant, how can one sift through the mountains of falsehoods and low signal-to-noise ratio data to find the correct information you seek? The answer lies in examining the argumentative process of that information;

Typically, an argument starts with premises, leading to a desired conclusion through a series of statements. In this series of statements, the following rules, summarised by Anthony Weston with some examples I’ve improvised for fun :), can be applied:

Rule 1: Determine the premises and conclusion.

It is crucial to understand what the premises and the conclusion are. Although it seems straightforward, often, conclusions do not logically follow from the premises. A conclusion is a statement that you need to provide reasons for, and these reasons are your premises. For example, to argue that smoking is harmful to your health, consider the following argument:

Since smoking can lead to a majority of people suffering from respiratory diseases, malignant tumours, cardiovascular diseases, etc., smoking should be eradicated. <Refer to the “China Smoking Health Hazards Report 2020” released by the National Health Commission>

Note: In the example above, the premise is that smoking can lead to various diseases, and the conclusion is that smoking should be eradicated (It’s up to the reader to decide if this example is a causal argument, although Nassim Nicholas Taleb believes that causal reasoning is post hoc in the western logical system established by Buffer and Aristotle, I’ll leave this as a placeholder for a future blog post). This rule focuses on two key points: first, ensuring you agree with both the premise and conclusion, and second, distinguishing between premise and conclusion. Failing to do so could lead to benign misunderstandings :)

Rule 2: Organize your thoughts.

Argumentation is the process of moving from reasons and evidence to conclusions, the aim being to make the argument clear and efficient. So, how can one achieve clarity and efficiency? By doing the following: group premises with their corresponding reasons/examples. Here are examples of what to do and what not to do.

We should eat more beans. The reason is that beans are healthy. Compared to most foods people currently consume, beans have higher dietary fibre and protein content, while their fat and cholesterol content is lower. Additionally, beans can be used to prepare many delicious dishes, such as hummus.

In the positive example, the conclusion is stated first, followed by reason one: compared to other common foods, beans contain higher dietary fibre and protein. Then, it presents reason two: beans can be used to make delicious foods. This logical sequence is clear and coherent.

Think about hummus. Compared with most foods people currently eat, beans have higher dietary fibre and protein content but lower fat and cholesterol levels. Beans can be made into many delicious dishes. We should eat more beans because they are healthy.

In the negative example, the example intended to support the main premise—such as beans being used to make delicious hummus—is scattered throughout rather than being closely linked to the premise it supports, leading to confusion and disorganisation.

Rule 3: Start with reliable premises.

What constitutes a reliable premise? A few examples are axioms and theorems in geometry and well-known facts like the Earth’s rotation and revolution. Starting with reliable premises can effectively avoid fundamental theoretical errors, laying a solid foundation for more complex arguments.

Rule 4: Be concrete and concise

Avoid abstract, vague, and general statements. “We walked under the sun for hours” is a hundred times better than saying, “It was a long period of physical exertion.” When it comes to describing the intensity of something, [numbers] are generally more specific than words.

For example, modern medicine uses pain rating scales to let patients describe the exact level of pain they’re feeling rather than just using words to describe their suffering.

Here is a specific example of revision:

Regarding a relatively limited physical extension of these male Homo sapiens, one might also say that humanity as a whole is making much larger strides.

Revised to -> This is one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.

Rule 5: Build on substance, not overtone

When making an argument, provide actual reasons rather than just suggestive or highly emotional statements.

Offer actual reasons; don’t just play on the overtones of words. Don’t use emotionally loaded words, especially not often.

If you can’t imagine how anyone could hold the view you are attacking, you probably don’t understand it yet. Seek out people’s perceptions based on the reasons within their premises, understand them, and argue those reasons. Do not argue the conclusion without identifying and understanding their reasons.