I'm sure we could all use some pointers
Posted By: in analysis and argumentation. on 2009-05-25
In Reply to: propaganda - see message - ??
Attacking sources is not good argumentation. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
For starters, these three rules would help a lot:
FOR THOSE MAKING A ClAIM:
1. Consider the possibility of bias when using a source to support a claim.
2. If you know your source is biased, that doesn't mean you shouldn't use it, but it does suggest the need to confirm the source in some way.
Anyone who is getting their information from a source with a known bias has an obligation to themselves not to allow themselves to be hoodwinked, and an even greater obligation to do so when a source that is potentially misleading is used to persuade others.
FOR THOSE RESPONDING TO CLAIMS:
3. Address the merits of the claim, the facts presented or the argument that is made directly. If any are faulty (whether because of bias, mistake, faulty logic or any other reason), it should be a simple enough matter to refute them directly. If you attack the source, you still leave open the question whether - however biased it might be - the source might still not happen to be right.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
|
