World as I Think

I was as usual putting forth an argument with my colleague about the potential impacts of Rupee appreciation, this time I "edified" a mellowed down view while he was countering it. It was "this time" because only a couple of days back I was painting an aggressive view on this issue. He was quick to react, "How can you change your view so frequently?”I have been alleged of this "tricky" act, never have I denied it.

I always considered contradictory thoughts to be perfectly normal, more convinced in cases where multiple views are quite evident and pragmatic. The whole process of argument is put to dust when we personalize the argument; we have this habit of identifying the person with the view and therefore assume contradiction. It would be far easier and productive if we show prudence in the thought that is being discussed rather than associating it with the person.

I can today talk for rupee appreciation and tom against it. It would be perfectly futile if we do the following things.

• Claim that the person personally believes in the view that rupee appreciation or depreciation although he might express a counter view.It could be that the person per se is indifferent in regard with this issue although he might have expressed a view.
• Claim that the person should believe in depreciation just because he works in an industry which is benefited by the factor.
• Claim that rupee appreciation is worse than depreciation just because the counter argument was put forth. In this uncertain world, Rubin, the popular economist says, it is better to assume a probabilistic thinking rather than binary ones which is unrealistic.

I can speak for my blunders as well while arguing, when the emotions take forefront, the argument becomes less of an intellectual exercise and more prone to create relationship drifts. I kind of become very perturbed when the person sticks to his/her view due to an ignorance about the counterview or if it’s sheer case of reluctance to validate it. The burden of proof lies with the person who invalidates it due to lack of knowledge. The other thing is clinging to the view when there are ample evidences to counter it and refuting the same with a rare case. The other case is a pure idiot syndrome and winning the argument parade, there is no point arguing in such cases.

Finally the definition of "Argument"

A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating a truth or falsehood; the methodical process of logical reasoning.

For people who are interested in common fallacies in argument

And for fans of Monty Python, No better way

Labels: Logic