One recommendation in Moral Thinking, Fast and Slow is that, in an argument, rather than countering the points our opponents are making, we should try to show that their mode of reasoning is faulty. Sauer expands on this in the book Debunking Arguments in Ethicsi.
To me this seems to be what C.S. Lewis criticizes as Bulverism, trying to explain away your opponent's arguments. Wouldn’t it more likely to annoy them and make them less willing to change their minds?
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest