Examples in argument

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Well, I've started arguing a lot lately, debating and the like, so in the past few days I've been paying special close attention to the conventions of proper argument and 'what works' opposed to 'what doesn't work'. I've realized examples are not usually my friend, they're often weak, to make use of a strong example, it's time consuming, one has to set up definite parameters, it's only sometimes when statements like 'For example, the area of a square is length times height' don't really need to be backed up.

I think examples don't have a place in true debate, when I argue with someone, I only argue against the point that they are trying to make. If their example has a flaw, maybe one of the facts was wrong, maybe if you looked at the example from a different perspective you'd find a fallacy, well who cares? Twisting someones words is not what debate is about.

I guess my problem, in less words, is this: I only use examples to help facilitate understanding, I use them so that my opponent understands what I'm trying to say, often times my examples are twisted and used against me. This is frustrating, leading me to wish that I could argue without example.

So what do you guys think about the relevance of examples?

[bluerev002]

Examples are absolutely necessary. Just remember that whatever you are arguing there is more than one way of looking at things therefore never go into a debate thinking that you are completely right. The point of arguing and debating is not to prove the other person wrong rather to learn from them.

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Yes! I totally agree! The other day I was thinking about -why- I argue so much, and I realized that it's because I want to find my own truths, in other words, I want to learn from others as much as I can, so that I can make the best decisions.

I realize that evidence is important, but still I feel like I'd rather argue with logic than fact. You know? Because fact, truth, real world examples, they all have random case specific factors, ie. An example will prove not only the point I'm trying to make, but also the point I'm not trying to make.

Hmm.. I think what I should focus on is refining my examples so as to establish minimum space for error.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Depends on what you mean by 'examples'.

Some examples are used in science as part of what are now called 'thought experiments', and these have been highly successful. Galileo, for instance, was able to employ many commonsense examples in his bid to refute Aristotelian mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

However, as one great modern philosopher noted, when philosophers use them, they tend to choose a very narrow range of specially-selected examples, which, just like a narrow diet, only leads to theoretical deficiency disorders.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00003190/

That philosopher, by the way, was Wittgenstein:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein