It would seem that the majority of people who participate in our debates on the causes of the Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever all share a genuine concern for the welfare of the nations affected by this unfortunate epidemic. Where there seems to be massive division is in the varying opinions as to how the epidemic started. These opinions are basically divided into three groups. A) Those that say the virus is manmade and subsequently intentionally or at best accidentally released upon the masses. B) Those that claim that its spread is due to unfortunate but natural biological causes, monkeys bats etc. C) Those that believe that the evidence is not scientifically conclusive enough to support one or more of the aforementioned claims particularly the first one (claim A) whose proponents are occasionally referred to as conspiracy theorist. Proponents of each side seem to be at a loss as to why the other side does not recognize what it considers to be convincing evidence in support of its thesis. One of the bases for this discrepancy is that many of our debates are carried out with one or sometimes all parties having differences in the fundamental precepts they use to forward their argument. In order to engage in a logical debate one must start from a logical premise for there to be any hope of deriving a logical conclusion. If truth is the genuine objective, arguments must commence from an acceptable standard of logical reasoning, based on facts rather than depending on rhetorical flourish and sloganeering e.g. “In the cause of the people the struggle continues” or The white man is out to destroy Africa. Whilst these phrases may sound catchy they really don’t prove anything one way or the other. Another example would be someone giving an opinion on a T.V. program as substantiating evidence. Though the person giving the interview may or may not be correct in their opinion, without the presentation of salient and provable facts it still represents nothing more than an opinion. History and human nature have demonstrated that there can be bearers of truth and falsity on all sides of an argument; no matter how sincere their audience or supporters may be. It is aso a historical fact that so called reputable institutions and governments have participated in reprehensible practices and conduct; such as the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments; not withstanding our standards for arguing pro or con, must never let scientific objectivity defer to emotional reasoning where facts are skewered to suit an argument rather than the facts shaping the argument. Science is and must remain the most objective of disciplines. Whose standards for proof must remain at an exceptionally high level. It must demand consistent and distinct benchmarks in the presentation of arguments especially when these arguments are in support of a scientific subject. In order to establish a claim being argued with certainty the evidence cannot automatically be assumed conclusive without corroborative reasoning processes being applied. Persuasive language or rhetoric is not automatically correct. Equally, unpersuasive rhetoric is not necessarily wrong. Therefore the application of factual evidence becomes paramount in substantiating any rhetorical stance. The following basic tools can be utilized advantageously to advance ones point. 1) Deductive reasoning or the process of utilizing corroborative statements and reasoning sequentially in order to establish the veracity of one’s arguments. This tool makes it easier for others to follow rather than jumping helter-skelter from one topic to another. 2) Inductive reasoning this evolves from a single point of specificity towards the establishment of a general rule in support of one’s argument. It is also a useful tool, which can help establish a plausible stream of ideas provided they are backed up with facts. Above all debaters should maintain an air of decorum and respect for themselves and their opponents. These are just a few thoughts and suggestions which I hope will help enhance our future skirmishes and fire fights as we continue to wage robust and vigorous war in pursuit of truth. EN GARDE
Posted on: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 00:16:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015