Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Codes of Intellectual Conduct For Effective Discussion: 3.1 Principles of Good Argument

The document outlines principles for effective discussion and critical thinking. It discusses 7 principles of good argument, including using structurally sound arguments with relevant reasons and rebutting criticisms. It then outlines 6 principles of critical thinking, such as acknowledging one's fallibility, seeking truth, using clear language, weighing evidence, and suspending judgment when positions are equally supported or unsupported. The overall purpose is to provide guidelines for intellectual conduct during discussions to construct strong arguments and resolve issues.

Uploaded by

Fuad Mohammed
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Codes of Intellectual Conduct For Effective Discussion: 3.1 Principles of Good Argument

The document outlines principles for effective discussion and critical thinking. It discusses 7 principles of good argument, including using structurally sound arguments with relevant reasons and rebutting criticisms. It then outlines 6 principles of critical thinking, such as acknowledging one's fallibility, seeking truth, using clear language, weighing evidence, and suspending judgment when positions are equally supported or unsupported. The overall purpose is to provide guidelines for intellectual conduct during discussions to construct strong arguments and resolve issues.

Uploaded by

Fuad Mohammed
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Codes of Intellectual Conduct for Effective Discussion

3.1 Principles of Good Argument


A discussion may involve two or more participants or it may simply be an internal
discussion with oneself. In either case, one who wishes to construct the strongest
possible arguments for his or her views, and to do one‘s part in resolving conflicts
concerning issues that matter, should make each of the following principles a part of his
or her intellectual style:

1. The Structural Principle: One who argues for or against a position should use an argument
that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well formed argument. Such an
argument does not use reasons that contradict each other, that contradict the conclusion, or
that explicitly or implicitly assume the truth of the conclusion. Neither does it draw any invalid
deductive inferences.
2. The Relevance Principle: One who presents an argument for or against a position should
attempt to set forth only reasons that are directly related to the merit of the position at issue.
3. The Acceptability Principle: One who presents an argument for or against a position should
provide reasons that are likely to be accepted by a mature, rational person and that meet
standard criteria of acceptability.
4. The Sufficiency Principle: One who presents an argument for or against a position should
attempt to provide relevant and acceptable reasons that are of the right kind, that together are
sufficient in number and weight to justify acceptance of the conclusion.
5. The Rebuttal Principle: One who presents an argument for or against a position should include
in the argument an effective rebuttal to all anticipated serious criticism of the argument that
may be brought against it or against the position it supports.

3.2 Principles of Critical Thinking


Having discussed the major principles of a good argument, let us now see the principles
of a critical thinking as parts of the codes of intellectual conduct.
1. The Fallibility Principle: Each participant in a discussion of a disputed issue should be willing to
accept the fact that he or she is fallible, which means that one must acknowledge that one’s
own initial view may not be the most defensible position on the question.
2. The Truth Seeking Principle: Each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly
searching for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore
one should be willing to examine alternative positions seriously, look for insights in the positions
of others, and allow other participants to present arguments for or raise objections to any
position held on an issue.
3. The Clarity Principle: The formulations of all positions, defenses and attacks should be free of
any kind of linguistic confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues.
4. The Burden of Proof Principle: The burden of proof for any position usually rests on the
participant who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent should
provide an argument for that position.
5. The Principle of Charity: If a participant’s argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should
be expressed in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the original intention of
the arguer. If there is any question about that intention or about any implicit part of the
argument, the arguer should be given the benefit of any doubt in the reformulation and/or,
when possible, given the opportunity to amend it.
6. The Suspension of Judgment Principle: If no position is defended by a good argument, or if two
or more positions seem to be defended with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend
judgment about the issue. If practical considerations seem to require a more immediate
decision, one should weigh the relative benefits or harm connected with the consequences of
suspending judgment and decides the issue on those grounds.
7. The Resolution Principle: An issue should be considered resolved if the argument for one of the
alternative positions is a structurally sound one that uses relevant and acceptable reasons that
together provide sufficient ground to justify the conclusion and that also includes an effective
rebuttal to all serious criticisms of the argument and/or the position it supports. Unless one can
demonstrate that the argument has not met these conditions more successfully than any
argument presented for alternative positions, one is obligated to accept its conclusion and
consider the issue to be settled. If the argument is subsequently found by any participant to be
flawed in a way that raises new doubts about the merit of the position it supports, one is
obligated to reopen the issue for further consideration and resolution.

You might also like