What is the CONCISE difference between an emotional and logical argument?
Posted on: July 14, 2007 - 7:13pm
Offline
What is the CONCISE difference between an emotional and logical argument?
And by concise, I mean not being paragraphs long. I just need this for a discussion I'm having, but I can't find anything on Google or Wikipedia.
Thanks!
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
- Login to post comments
Logical is based on facts, emotional on feelings.
Well, an appeal to emotion doesn't contain supporting evidence. It's just an empty appeal.
For instance, if we're arguing about say, whether or not abortion should be encouraged as a way to reduce overpopulation in Africa, and you were to say, "But think about when you had your child. Think about that moment that you first held your son in your arms, and how wonderful you felt! Do you want to take that away from someone else?"
The question at hand deals with overpopulation and abortion. The statement you made doesn't address these topics in any way. You would be trying to get someone on your side by evoking feelings within them. Essentially, you're distracting them from the point by bringing their emotions into play, while not providing any relevant argument.
It's important to note that a valid argument can have emotional appeal, or it can be emotionally repulsive. The difference is whether or not there's actually any substance to the argument.
A logical argument is a series of statements that link premises with conditionals -- if, then, etc...
1) If X is true, then Y must be true
2) X is true.
3) Therefore, Y is true.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Actually, the more I've thought about it, I didn't state myself well...
A valid logical argument can also contain an appeal to emotion. For instance, a salesman might pick up on something that appeals to you emotionally, and use perfectly valid reasons for you to buy the thing, while at the same time, tapping into your emotional response to solidify your resolve.
So, just because something has an emotional appeal, it's not necessarily untrue. Good critical thinking requires that the answer which fits the syllogism is true, regardless of whether or not it's emotionally appealing.
1. If X is true, then Y is true.
2. If Y is true, that would be really awful, wouldn't it!
3. X gives every appearance of being true, but wouldn't it suck if it were true, because then Y.
4. Y isn't true, therefore X must not be true.
This is an example of emotion pulling an argument off course. Y is true, despite the fact that it sucks. By constantly focusing on the emotional value of Y, the argument has changed from what is true to what we want to be true.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I probably should have described the context:
My opponent is being emotional - throwing personal attacks and a hissy fit. You know the usual fare - blaming one's ineptitude to make a coherent rebuttal on his opponent lol. Anyway, how would you concisely convince such a person that he is being emotional? His defense thus far:
My response (trying to keep it the same length or shorter as his post):
I considered acknowledging that yes, everyone is emotional, but when one is described as being "emotional," they are being told that they are being overwhelmed by emotion. But I decided against mentioning that because "being overwhelmed by emotion" is such vague verbage, and I just won't stoop down to that level lol.
I also considered mentioning how emotional people are guided by emotional rather than by logic. But then I realized that even logic is accompanied by emotion, so that line of reasoning, even if my opponent probably won't even notice the flaw, doesn't hold.
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
Ah. This is tough.
It's very difficult to get someone off the emotion boat once they're on, but I think psychology is your friend here, not logic. As long as he's reacting emotionally, cold hard logic is going to be your enemy.
In cognitive therapy, the therapist often uses mirroring, both physical and verbal, to try to influence the mood of the patient. "Players" also use this kind of thing when they're trying to pick up women. It's based on good psychology. The thing here is that for any meaningful conversation to take place, both participants have to be on or near the same playing field. He's not going to come to yours, so you have to go to his.
Is there a time when you were extremely emotional about something, and it turned out you were wrong, and you hurt yourself or someone else by reacting emotionally?
If there is, maybe it would help to tell him about it, preferably in as painful of detail as possible. The idea is to help him understand that you know where he's coming from.
The second thing is it sounds as if he's feeling really pressured. It might be a good thing for you to back off a bit. When he's defensive, he's reacting on a base level, not an intellectual one. Saying something like, "Look, I hear that you're really aggravated about this. It's not something we have to keep talking about. If you are feeling better later and want to talk again, we can."
If you can get him to the point of responding with logic, you can use the illustration of a salesman using emotion to convince people to buy something. Maybe the customer needs to buy the thing, maybe not, but any good salesman knows that you appeal to emotion because that way, you can get both customers! The one who should buy and the one who shouldn't. Emotion is very good when you don't want to go on just facts, but it's not good for discovering the truth.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Very helpful stuff, Hambydammit. You're right - I can't really engage him logically if he's thinking emotionally. I suppose I still want to engage him logically though because this is a public debate, and there is a bit of satisfaction in affirming my case. I also suppose if my case is strong enough, I can give him "a way out." I like your idea of sharing an emotionally ego-crushing story to help him understand that I know where he's coming from, but I'm not sure if that would fly well if done publicly; even privately, I'd be concerned about coming across as condescending or patronizing (even if I already am with my short, curt rebuttals lol). Perhaps I just haven't figured out a tactful way.
Yeah, he is feeling pretty pressured and he is trying hard to save face. I told him earlier that he shouldn't take a debate so personally since one's debate skills is just that - a skill - and it doesn't paint a complete picture of any individual. I'm gonna take you up on your advice and offer him a gentle way out. I think that's also gentlemanly!
Already used all that, except I used a politician instead of a salesman for my analogy! LOL.
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
I'm proving once again to myself that I really should always ask questions even if I think I know what's going on.
Yeah, I wouldn't advise the private story in a public forum. Knowing that he's losing face publicly changes things a bit, too. Actually, you've already won the debate if this is what he's doing. You don't have to do much of anything at this point.
I'd say a good way to finish him off would be something like this:
"Well, there's not really much more I can contribute to this debate. I'm not interested in trading emotional jabs, and until we're both on the same playing field (logic, fact, critical thinking) I don't think we're going to get very far. If you want to respond logically to any of my points, I'm always happy to listen. Just let me know when you're ready."
This hits him hard twice. First, anyone watching will see that you've taken the high ground. He can't recover from that without doing the olympic backpedal. Second, you're clearly willing to discuss this, so he can't accuse you of running.
His choices? 1) Chill out and address your points logically 2) Leave the debate.
Either way, you win the exchange.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Very nice. Thank you!
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
In my opinion, as BGH posted here, you're probably never going get him to admit he's wrong, but you may change some minds of those that are "watching".
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
The problem here is that you want to rationally demonstrate the irrationality of an irrational person to that same irrational person. But since they are being irrational, rationality is lost on them.
My Artwork