4

Suppose that I have an argument with a person, and s/he argues convincingly for his opinion.

In case I cannot disprove his argument, would the intellectually honest thing to do be to accept it and its conclusion?

Sam
  • 283
  • 1
  • 7
  • 1
    No. Real life arguments are not logically ironclad, they rely on plausible inferences and judgments to reach a conclusion. You may not know where exactly the reasoning goes wrong from your viewpoint, but accepting the conclusion is not forced by not being able to offer a ready made rebuttal. What you *should* do if you are intellectually honest is inspect the argument and your own reservations in detail, and determine which premises and/or inferences are not as persuasive as they seem at first glance. Or else, convince yourself that your doubts were unfounded after all, maybe due to biases. – Conifold May 31 '21 at 18:25
  • @Conifold If you turn your comment into an answer, I will accept it as the one solving the question. – Sam Jun 01 '21 at 05:03
  • 1
    A common counter example is the expert (either genuine or self proclaimed) who would provide an argument you can't understand and therefore can't counter yourself, but another expert in the field would be able to see through that. Humanities, and philosophy in particular, are a field where, often, people will resort to name dropping or using big words and concepts in the hope it will impress their audience. Intellectual honesty requires you to accept only arguments you can reproduce for yourself, provided you did your due diligence to understand them (no wilful ignorance). – armand Jun 01 '21 at 12:08

4 Answers4

3

No. Real life arguments are not logically ironclad, they rely on plausible inferences and judgments to reach a conclusion. Many are sensitive to context, and may not be as plausible at all when shifted to a different one, see Argumentation theory, but remain psychologically compelling nonetheless. Our thinking is also subject to many cognitive biases that serve as useful shortcuts in ordinary situations, but can go very wrong when pushed beyond their ordinary range. Persuasiveness is not the same as validity, even informal validity.

"Gut feeling" about a conclusion is a holistic assessment of it based on our predispositions and experience. It may be affected by habits, biases or insufficient familiarity with the background information, or it may be a signal of a real flaw. But one thing it is not is consciously laid out. You may not know where exactly the reasoning goes wrong from your viewpoint, but accepting the conclusion is not forced by not being able to offer a ready made rebuttal. Of course, just dismissing or ignoring it are not sound options either.

What you should do, if you are intellectually honest, is inspect the argument and your own reservations in detail, make both as explicit as possible. If the conclusion is indeed erroneous then tracking the inference chain should help detect the links that are not as persuasive as they seemed at first glance. If the inferences are plausibly valid then the fault lies with the premises. Tracing logical dependencies between them and the conclusion may lead you to pinpoint what you must reject or qualify upon full consideration despite initially accepting it. All of this takes time and reflection, and laying out a rebuttal even more so. Alternatively, thinking it through may convince you that your doubts were unfounded after all, perhaps due to biases or insufficient information. The process should help you pinpoint those as well. So the proper initial response to a facially convincing argument with a suspect conclusion is something like this:"It sounds convincing but I am still hesitant. Let me think about it and get back to you".

Conifold
  • 42,225
  • 4
  • 92
  • 180
  • Dude. What is your background or position? Can you share generally if not specifically? Conifold i mean – Al Brown Aug 07 '21 at 09:47
  • What if someone makes a **claim** and I cannot disprove it? Am I obligated to accept it? – Sam Aug 27 '22 at 11:55
2

If you accept the premises and the argument is logical, then I don't see why you would want to reject the conclusion. It all depends on whether the premises seem really believable to you.

If you nonetheless disagree with the conclusion, this should be motivation enough to investigate whether the argument is really logical and whether the premises are flawless. This usually involves hard work, though, and many people will not be willing or have the time to do it.

I do remember one guy who disagreed with the conclusion even though he accepted that the premises were all good and that the argument was logical. He just didn't like the conclusion!

I recently find myself in that situation where I didn't like the conclusion. I did the hard work and concluded that the premises and the argument were all good and so I changed my mind about the conclusion. In the process, I discovered some very interesting facts I didn't know, so I would say it can be worth the trouble. It also makes you realise you can be certain of something and yet be wrong. Something which is probably good to remember.

Speakpigeon
  • 5,522
  • 1
  • 10
  • 22
  • Only *one* guy? This seems to be pretty popular these days. – user253751 May 31 '21 at 09:51
  • @user253751 I agree, and nothing specific to these days I suspect, but I only remember this one dude because I did spent time trying to argue with him to see what his real problem was, without success I have to say. I suspect "dogma". – Speakpigeon May 31 '21 at 10:10
  • What if someone makes a **claim** and I cannot disprove it? Am I obligated to accept it? – Sam Aug 27 '22 at 11:55
  • 1
    @Sam "*obligated*" Why should you be? It is up to you, but something has to give. Either you accept the premises and validity of the argument and then you have to concede that the conclusion is true; or you cannot accept the conclusion and then you have to falsify either the premises or the validity of the argument. You can stay undecided and wait for inspiration. Or you could renounce logic altogether? Seems a popular option. 2. "*I cannot disprove it*" Hum, you'd be surprised how many seemingly valid arguments are not. That it seems you cannot disprove an argument doesn't mean it is valid. – Speakpigeon Aug 27 '22 at 16:15
1

If you really have no answer to it, then yes, the intellectually honest thing to do is to accept their opinion. Why wouldn't you, if all the evidence you know about says the opinion is right? You may also research what others have said on the issue, which may give you a better understanding.

However, just because the opinion is probably right doesn't mean it's very certain. The other person may have provided weak evidence; since you have no counter, you should accept his claims at least for now, but only with weak confidence.

causative
  • 10,452
  • 1
  • 13
  • 45
1

Being convincing and being right are not the same thing.

There will be people who will lie blatantly to convince you, or blatantly misrepresent things. There are people who have spent a lot of time practicing how to appear convincing. How to use fallacies that are not obvious at all. How to complicate things so you can’t find a repudiation.

The more someone has practiced convincing people, the more likely it is that their obvious proof is just bamboozling you.

gnasher729
  • 5,048
  • 11
  • 15
  • 2
    So how do I tell the difference between a situation when I am unable to rebut an argument because I am bamboozled, and when I am unable to rebut an argument because the person making it is right? – Sam May 30 '21 at 14:38