This paper will explore the utility of three questions which can be used as a response to any inquiry or statement to preclude misconstructions.

The first of these questions is an elaboration. It can be asked in many ways:

What do you mean?
Can you elaborate?
I’m not sure I understand.

This notion is hinted at in the end of To Be. That a question of what something “is,” perhaps knowledge, may result in circumlocution as long as there is no explicit determination of what is truly desired. In this particular example, using one of these phrases forces the interrogator to establish a clearer intent, thus allowing an actual correct answer.

We can abstract this observation to see that wherever a question or statement is made which might have multiple acceptable answers or meanings, a response similar to the ones listed will facilitate fruitful discussion with a clear target. If the original author cannot properly explain their inquiry or statement, engaging in discussion may be extremely difficult, as the issue is not known commonly to the parties, allowing for misconstruction.

Secondly, the need of evidence:

Why should people agree with you?
How do you know this?
Do you have evidence/proof?

As discussed in Evidence, many claims are merely asserted. One person states, “X occurs very often,” and the other will say “That’s absolutely false—X does not happen.” Yet neither has provided any reason for their claim to be believed.

The burden of proof or even “evidence” as it is used colloquially can often be too extreme. The first two questions account for this while requiring that the claimant provide some type of evidence for their claim which may then be examined.

Finally, ramifications:

Why is this important?
Therefore…?
Why do you ask?

Information has purpose. If statements existed merely as facts, we would find no interest in promulgating particular truths over others. This notion was tacitly discussed in Intimations, but here it shall be stated expressly:

$\Iota \implies \Alpha$

Where $\Iota$ is the information whose truth is claimed, and $\Alpha$ is the action which presumably follows. This action might be the adoption of an ideological corollary or the apostasy of another.

That $\Alpha$ is implied by $\Iota$ is very often obvious just by $\Iota$. The use of$\implies$here, however, is not the necessary connection common in mathematics, but rather the “potentially contains” or “suggests” which is more natural of the term. This is to say that this tacit claim is not necessarily true.

A common mistake in the contention of $\Alpha$ is the denial of $\Iota$, which, by itself, may be true. If $\Alpha$ is truly false, it is the implication which is untrue and ought to be examined to most cogently deny $\Alpha$.

This is the reasoning behind the final set of questions. 1) and 2) necessitate the author to explain the implication to $\Alpha$, which can then be discussed. 3) exists in the form of responding to a question that is asked. Consider:

You said that you were rich—how much does that watch you’re wearing cost?

Supposing that the claim of affluence is true, yet the watch worn is not of a particularly high value, answering this question would be injudicious. Unfortunately, humans are extremely receptive to this sort of implication, likely because it uses an admission from the party whose claim is contended. Instead:

What difference does it make?

The plaintiff here will likely state that rich people tend to wear expensive jewelry—this was the basis of the implication he attempted to establish. That

$\text{Affluence} \implies \text{Expensive Jewelry}$

so

$\neg \text{(Expensive Jewelry)} \implies \neg \text{(Affluence)}$

even though the connections are not necessary. When he states this expressly, the defendant can criticize this logic cogently, or perhaps appeal to another fact which suggests affluence.

All of these sets of questions afford a sufficient variety and candor such that their use will not be unaesthetic for reasons unrelated to logic. With these, many argumentative frustrations may be alleviated.

POLEMIC

THE HOME OF REASON

Home

Topics

Featured

Trending

Hall of Fame

Official Posts

Account

Sign In

Subscriptions

Polemic

Pro

About

FAQ

Stats

Games

Privacy Policy

Content Policy

Terms of Service

Polemic

Three Questions

Discussion (0)

20

2

11.0K

Three Questions

POST

Recommended