Please see the original text as that contains links that are not broken...
Return to the summary page.

The Irrefutability of nonsense-arguments and implications

by nonsense-argument I mean a line of argument that is based on either wrong assumption or wrong inference, and this wrongness can be easily demonstrated, based on common-knowledge. See linguistcis blatant nonsense for examples.

It may seem that nonsense-arguments are not a problem, because they can be brushed aside easily. However, there is very large number of possible nonsense-arguments. Thus when a person uses a nonsense-argument to support her/his pisition, once you prove this is wrong, shhe can always find another argument to support his/her position. Since the number of arguments than can be discussed in any kind of setting is finite (and actually quite small), a person that uses nonsense-arguments will never run out of arguments. Thus when a person holds a wrong position and supports it with nonsense-arguments, shhe can never be convinced thet shhe is wrong (see Trying to publish the Brain-symbols paper to an extended example).

This problem is much more widespread than most people (or maybe even all people) are aware of. In particular, in the field of human thinking it is almost universal. In general, you cannot assume that anybody is free from using nonsense-arguments, including yourself.

Additional problem is that while people don't like finding that the position they hold is wrong, they much more hate finding that their arguments are nonsense. Thus, when a person supports a position by a nonsense-argument, shhe will be even more reluctant than usual to admit shhe is wrong. Shhe will also will find any person that points to his/her nonsense-arguments irritating. This cause many people to avoid pointing to othe rpeople when they use nonsense-arguments

When a person holds a sound position, shhe can avoid the unpleasent situation of having to admit a nonsense-argument by using sound arguments to support his/her position. Thus, normally we should not expect a person to defend a sound position by nonsense-arguments. Hence, when a person uses a nonsense-argumenst it is not only not supporting his position, it is actually suggesting that his/her position is wrong.

Implications

When you make a nonsense-argument

If you are not actually interested in understanding the subject of discussion, then there is no problem. However, if you are interested, you should monitor yourslf to see if you make nonsense-arguments. When you find that you have used a nonsense-argument (i.e. somebody refuted your argument with a short conter-argument), you should avoid doing the common thing, which is either changing the subject or coming with a new argument. Instead, you should re-think what you know about the subject, assuming that your position (the one you were trying to defend) is wrong. The point is that once you have defended your position (which is probably wrong) by a nonsense-argument, you will find it even more diffcult to find that it is wrong in the future, and will hinder your understanding of the subject.

Discussion with somebody that uses nonsense-arguments

As explained above, once a person uses a nonsense-argument, shhe is unlikely to be ever convinced that shhe wrong. In principle, you may try to point to the nonsenseness of his/her argument, and hope that shhe will do th right thing as in the previous section. In practice, however, it is more likely that shhe will either pick another nonsense-argument or change the subject, and the only effect you will have is irritating him/her. As mentioned above, most of people already worked out the latter point, and avoid poonting other people's nonsense-arguments.

It should be noted that if you think that you have spotted a nonsense-argument, it is not not necessarily because the other person used a nonsense-argument. It may also be because:

If you avoid pointing the nonsense-argument, or you do and the person you discuss with picked-up a new nonsense-argument or changed the subject, then the discussion becomes useless. You are not going to learn anything useful from the other person, because his/her position is probably wrong, and shhe is not going to learn anything from you, because shhe is going to defend her/his position. Ofcourse, they maybe reasons why you will want to continue the discussion (politeness, you want to get the other person to do something, you are arguing for an audience), but it is better described as a 'psychological wrestling' than a discussion.

While the fact that a person usesa nonsense-argument stroongly suggests that his/her position is wrong, it gives only weak support to your position. That is because yours and the other person's position are not the only possible positions, so even after the other person's position is eliminated, there are competing positions.

Observing somebody using nonsense-argument

As discussed above, that suggests that the position this person holds is unsound. This suggestion become stronger when the person knows a lot about the subject, because in this case shhe would have found it easier to find the sound arguments, if there were any.

It should be noted that because in this case the person does not have a chance to correct or defend hemself, you need to be more careful in checking that it is realy a nonsense-argument. On the other hand, it is important that you take into account the possibility that the person uses a nonsense-argument, no matter what his/her authority is, because otherwise you will be misled by the Blatant nonsense effect.

-------------------------------

Yehouda Harpaz

yeh@harlequin.co.uk
12Jul98
http://www.yehouda.com/