Refutation is both an argumentative strategy and one of
the six parts of the classical oration.
The classical
oration, as described in Cicero's de Inventione and the
pseudo-Ciceronian Rhetorica ad Herennium, consists of six parts,
introduction, narration, division, proof, refutation, conclusion. In the division (or
partition), you discuss what you will choose to argue and which parts of your opponent's
argument you will refute. In the refutation, you refute not only actual
counter-arguments to your claim but any possible counter-arguments you might anticipate.
The two main ways of disproving an argument are showing
that it is formally invalid or materially incorrect.
Formal invalidity refers to logical errors, or conclusions
not following from premisses, irrespective of whether the statements correspond to an
actual state of affairs. For example, I might say "Dr. Smith's hair is blonde and
therefore he isn't a lawyer." Even if Dr. Smith's hair is blonde, and Dr. Smith is a
doctor, not a lawyer, the complete statement, despite being factually correct, is
formally invalid because the colour of Dr. Smith's hair has no logical connection with
his profession.
Material incorrectness refers to getting
facts wrong. Examine the claim: "All dogs are purple. Spot is a dog. Therefore Spot is
purple." This is logically valid. The conclusion follows from the premisses. Since,
however, all dogs are not purple, it is materially
incorrect.
There are other tactics for casting doubt on an
argument which are not strictly refutation. Many can verge on unethical. For example,
political attack ads often try to undermine opposing candidates' positions by attacking
their personal character and trying to make them seem unpatriotic or out of touch with
voters. Another strategy is the reductio ad absurdum, in which you
show that an opponent's position would lead to absurd or undesireable
consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment