Please note: This site's design is only visible in a graphical browser that supports Web standards, but its content is accessible to any browser or Internet device. To see this site as it was designed please upgrade to a Web standards compliant browser.
 
Signal vs. Noise

Our book:
Defensive Design for the Web: How To Improve Error Messages, Help, Forms, and Other Crisis Points
Available Now ($16.99)

Most Popular (last 15 days)
Looking for old posts?
37signals Mailing List

Subscribe to our free newsletter and receive updates on 37signals' latest projects, research, announcements, and more (about one email per month).

37signals Services
Syndicate
XML version (full posts)
Get Firefox!

Rules for Arguments

09 Feb 2004 by Matthew Linderman

A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston lists 44 rules for injecting logic into argumentative discourse. He writes, “It is not a mistake to have strong views. The mistake is to have nothing else.” Also, “If you can’t imagine how anyone could hold the view you are attacking, you just don’t understand it yet.”

8 comments so far (Post a Comment)

09 Feb 2004 | Bill Brown said...

Very interesting premise. These are rules that one can certainly garner from experience. I wish I had had this book when I was eighteen and something of a firebrand. Instead, I had to spend about five years being constantly perturbed, strident, and hotheaded before I realized the futility and counterproductivity of such an approach.

His other book sounds promising as well.

09 Feb 2004 | Mike said...

I highly recommend The Aims of Argument. This was the text for an english class I took in college. I found it very interesting, being that I completely hate debating, argueing, etc when there's nothing to gain or when someone is just playing devil's advocate.

Discussions on the other hand are a completely different story, and if the other person is interested in my views and I in theirs, then it's worth my time. Here's the books description:

"The Aims of Argument is a process-oriented introduction to argumentation with unique coverage of the aims, or purposes, of argument: to inquire, to convince, to persuade, and to mediate. In contrast to other approaches, the focus on aims provides rhetorical context that helps students write, as well as read, arguments."

09 Feb 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"Instead, I had to spend about five years being constantly perturbed, strident, and hotheaded before I realized the futility and counterproductivity of such an approach."

Er, have you been to your site recently! ;)

10 Feb 2004 | Bill Brown said...

That's funny. I guess you'll just have to believe me when I say that I've come a long way.

10 Feb 2004 | diseo web said...

diseo web

10 Feb 2004 | alf said...

Hey thanks deseo web!

10 Feb 2004 | Bill Brown said...

Diseo web: I like the cut of your jib. Maybe you should be the next guest blogger here. I can just imagine the thoughtful posts we'd see on the front page:

Big Post
03 March 2004 by diseo web

Hey Google, go here.

Comments on this post are closed

 
Back to Top ^