The free world is kind of a mess right now. Seems we’ve lost something in a trade or hit a wall. We’re so team oriented sending and receiving messages is like exchanging alien signals. Naturally, if we are to decode these strange outbursts, it’s time to get innovative. We have a suggestion!
As one can probably surmise from the title, this episode is about arguing. We explore some of Harland’s thoughts and ideas on the middle ground between dogmatic appeals to truth and defeatist egalitarianism. You may not be entitled to your own facts, but you do have the capacity for building an argument through premises and conclusions!
Listen up, extremists!
-The Dawdlers
00:04:00 – Argumentation Theory as the middle way between Dogmatism and Epistemic Egalitarianism / Preferring Agreement to Disagreement
00:11:15 – Descriptive v. Normative Argumentation Analysis / Argument “In the wild” v. Argument Institutionalized / Charles Wilard
00:21:45 – Some Basic Concepts of Argumentation Theory: Pro/Con, Pragmatic Speech Acts/Propositions, Enthymemes, Resolve/Settle
00:38:15 – Domesticated Primates, Munchausen’s Angels, & Impossible Gods – Idealization in Engineering Helps Chimps Transcend Animal Limitations
00:50:30 – What is Argument? / Some Definitions Compared / Normative Semantics
01:14:10 – The Argument Argument / The Procedure: Claims, Premises, Conclusions, Definitions, Logic, Reasoning / Ham & Eggs v. Ham & Cheese
01:26:05 – Reasonable People Can’t Disagree / I/O Concordance Given Successful Communication / Tending Toward Resolution
01:43:45 – The Burden of Proof / Are any Topics Off-Limits?
