Thinking Lab · 2 lessons
Argumentation
Build and evaluate arguments A position you can only defend against the weak version of the opposition is a position you have not yet tested.
Free — no account needed to read
Build and evaluate arguments
In one line: Build a case that could be revised — and state, in advance, what would revise it.
When you need it
- You need someone to act, not merely to agree.
- You are about to write the other side’s view in the weakest form you can find.
- You want to test your own position before it is tested for you.
The common misreading
- What people think
- A strong argument is one that cannot be attacked.
- What is true instead
- An argument that nothing could revise is a declaration. Naming what would change your mind is what makes the rest of it credible.
After this module you can make a case with its reasoning stated, and the strongest version of the opposite beside it.
The key idea
A position you can only defend against the weak version of the opposition is a position you have not yet tested.
Start with a hard question
Write it as well as its own advocates would. Notice how hard or easy that was.
What is the strongest argument against something you believe strongly?
Answer it before reading the lessons — then again after, and notice what changed.
The lessons
- The structure of an argument — Claim, evidence, reasoning. The missing one is almost always the reasoning. (6 min)
- Counterargument, response, and the strongest opposing case — State what would change your mind as part of the argument. An argument nothing could revise is a declaration. (7 min)
Practise it
Short exercises. Under each is what a considered answer tends to contain — not a mark scheme.
Steelman it
Take a position you disagree with in your field. Write the strongest version, with its best evidence, in a paragraph.
- Tends to contain: A version its advocates would accept
- Tends to contain: Real evidence, not a caricature
- Tends to contain: The part you find hardest to answer
Three parts
Take "we should switch to a four-day week". Separate the claim, the evidence, and the reasoning that connects them.
- Tends to contain: The claim stated precisely enough to be false
- Tends to contain: Evidence that could have come out the other way
- Tends to contain: The reasoning is explicit, not assumed
Reflect
Which of your positions got weaker once you built the opposing case properly?
Mental models for this
- Positions and interests — A position is what someone demands. An interest is what that demand serves. Positions conflict far more than interests do.
- Steelmanning — Stating the opposing case so well its own advocates would accept your version.
Methods for this
- Take an argument apart — Separating an argument into its working parts so you can see which one is weak.
- Build the strongest opposing case — Stating the other position so well that someone who holds it would agree with your version.
- Positions and interests — Getting underneath what each side is demanding to what each side needs.
- Find the crux — Locating the one belief that, if it flipped, would change both your minds.
- Answer first, then support it — Structuring an explanation so the conclusion comes before the reasoning.
- Make an idea stick — Six properties that make an idea survive being retold.
- Character, emotion, logic — The three appeals, and noticing which one is actually doing the work on you.