Illegal tricks in a dispute, Logical tricks - Logic for managers

Illegal tricks in a dispute

The trick in the dispute is called any technique, with which you want to ease the dispute for yourself and make it difficult for the opponent. The dispute, being a form of argumentation, includes not only logical, but also extralogical (speech, emotional, psychological, etc.) means of convincing influence. Therefore, the tricks used in the dispute, it is appropriate to divide into logical and extralogical.

The former are primarily addressed to the intellectual, and the latter are to the value-semantic and emotional-volitional sphere of human life.

Logical tricks

Most of them are a conscious violation of the rules of logic, with which we are already familiar. The most typical substitution of concepts or thesis (full or partial). This is a trick that has many varieties. Consider these:

Switching to another genus - is one of the most rude. "For example," writes GI Chelpanov, "if it is necessary to prove that something is unfair in the moral sense, and somebody would argue that it is unfair in the legal sense, he would instead prove something quite different, although a similar ".

Expansion or narrowing of the thesis. Masters of tricks try to expand the opponent's thesis, and narrow down his own, and do it imperceptibly. After all, more general statements are more difficult to prove, but easier to refute, and less general, on the contrary, easier to prove, but harder to refute. For example, the opponent said that very many officials take bribes. And you, repeating this thesis say: "Yes, yes, many, many take, then, in your opinion, they are all bribe-takers ... But I know very honest officials. So you're wrong! There are two substitutions: instead of many take - many take and in addition all take & quot ;. Similarly (but only in the direction of narrowing) with respect to its own thesis. Somehow one political character asked the journalists: "Do you have real estate abroad?" And he answered: "There is nothing! What kind of palaces, just a small house with a terrace! - There is a direct substitution: instead of the generic concept of "real estate" The specific palace followed by a "refutation".

Substitution of conditional unconditional. Your opponent thinks some thought is true, but with certain conditions (with reservations). And you pick up this idea, but without any reservations and begin to refute it. This is reminiscent of the dispute between Leo Tolstoy and Vladimir Solovyov over whether it is morally possible to throw children out of the window. In general, no, and in case of fire, if this is the only way to save the child, then, perhaps, it is possible. Plots can be multiplied. For example, is it possible to shoot a cannon if children are near the target? - You can not! And if, like in L. Tolstoy's "Shark", the sea monster approaches the children swimming in the sea, and there is no other way to get distressed?

Refuting the enemy's arguments or revealing the logical inconsistency of his reasoning give out for refuting the thesis . This is approximately the same if the teacher began to refute the Pythagorean theorem only because the student could prove it.

Instead of discussing the subject of the dispute, its participants (for example, their personal qualities) are discussed.

Using polysemy (ambiguity) of words: "Do you play the piano?" I play, but I do not like. What's wrong? Maps slip & quot ;. Or: "A good deal of washable wallpaper!" Yes, it's just inconvenient to put them in the washing machine. "

The vicious circle - the thesis is substantiated by the arguments, and the arguments - by the thesis. For example, sleeping pills sleep, because it has a hypnotic effect.

A hasty summary.

After that, it means for this reason .

Use of false and unproven arguments (the main misconception, the anticipation of the foundation) in the hope that the opposing side will not notice it.

thematic pictures