Merely opposing or contradicting a position does not equal refuting it.
In the realm of reasoning and logic; also called common sense, A&R is game.
Argument: a disagreement or a mode of reasoning wherein a set of statements mean to establish a definite proposition while logic serves as the means to evaluate the quality of ratiocination applied within the argument as to determine whether the conclusion reached proves both valid and sound.
Refutation: disagreement in its most convincing form. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. To refute someone we have to quote them. We have to find a "smoking gun"; a passage -in whatever we disagree with- we feel is mistaken; point it out; substantiate why it is mistaken and how it affects the whole, if at all. The force of a refutation therefore, depends on what we refute and how we do it.
The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point. Truly refuting the central point means we have to identify it, then commit explicitly to it. A truly effective refutation would look something like this:
The (poster's) main point seems to be X, as it says:
- quotation -
This is wrong for the following reasons ..................... (explanation)
These reasons show the (poster's) main point wrong because ..................... (substantiation)
Therefore ..................... (outcome)
If we can't find a "smoking gun"; a central point to disagree with, and argue anyway, we may be arguing with a "straw man" and in effect with and against ourselves.
propositions that imply their own negation are necessarily false
and propositions implied by their own negation necessarily true
rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -
New!! Improved!! Now With CDEH-Formula!!
CD: short for inevitability