|
Arabic
Bengali
Chinese
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Malay
Polish
Portuguese
Spanish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese|
Lecture notes, cheat sheets
Logics. Refutation (lecture notes)
Directory / Lecture notes, cheat sheets Table of contents (expand) LECTURE No. 22. Refutation 1. The concept of refutation A refutation is considered to be a logical operation in which the falsity or groundlessness of the thesis under consideration is shown (asserted). A thesis is a statement that needs to be refuted. It is refuted with rebuttal arguments - judgments, by means of which the thesis is refuted. Refutation can be direct and indirect. Wherein direct way there is only one refutation, while there are two indirect ones. Further, all methods are considered separately, starting with the first method of refutation - direct. direct way This is a refutation of the facts. From a scientific (and almost any) point of view, this method is the most convenient. Refutation by facts with the right approach fully shows the inconsistency of the thesis put forward. This is possible only with the correct selection of facts, their skillful use, depends on the person's abilities in the field of dialogue, as well as his knowledge in this area. The facts used to refute the thesis can be statistical data, axioms, proven positions, etc. As can be seen, due to the established truth of the indicated facts and their contradiction to the thesis under consideration, such a refutation has a correct, obvious character. Errors that can be easily refuted with facts are often found in Hollywood semi-historical films, where the chronological sequence of events is confused to achieve the desired effect. With such errors, it is sufficient to provide data on the real time of each event under consideration. The next two types of refutation are indirect. One of them is refutation through falsity of consequences. To do this, the consequences of the thesis are traced. During a refutation through the falsity of consequences, the thesis is accepted for discussion. This is done, firstly, so that the opponent temporarily feels superior (victory in this episode), and secondly, in order to reveal the falsity of the thesis. During the discussion, the consequences of the thesis are considered, which do not correspond to the real state of affairs. This makes obvious the inconsistency of the thesis itself. This approach is often called reduction to absurdity. It should be remembered that the contradiction of the consequences of the thesis to the truth must not only be quite clear and obvious, but also real. Another type of indirect refutation can be called refutation through antithesis. Obviously, the refutation here occurs on the basis of evidence from the opposite, i.e., antithesis. With this type of refutation, there is a concept, a judgment that contradicts the previously put forward statement. In order to prove the falsity of a thesis, the truth of its antithesis is proven, that is, a newly put forward judgment that contradicts the one being considered. The effectiveness of this method of refutation is based on the law of excluded middle (discussed in the corresponding chapter). In other words, after proving the truth of a proposition that contradicts the thesis under consideration, according to the law of excluded middle, the latter is inevitably recognized as false. Each of the two contradictory propositions can be either true or false, there is no third. It should be remembered that the truth of the antithesis must be fully proven. For an example of such a refutation, let's take the universally affirmative proposition "All athletes have well-developed muscles." Contradicting it will be a particular negative judgment "Some athletes do not have well-developed muscles." To prove this judgment, it is necessary to give examples proving that not all sports are aimed at developing muscles. For example, in chess, all attention is paid to the mental abilities of the athlete. Since the truth of a particular negative judgment has been established, it can be said that the refuted thesis is false. In this way, purpose of refutation is to identify the incorrect construction of evidence and the falsity or lack of evidence of the asserted judgment (thesis). 2. Refutation through arguments and form Other names for these methods of refutation are - criticism of arguments and failure of demonstration. As the name suggests, In the first case the refutation is directed not at the thesis itself, but at the arguments supporting it. Of course, the negation of the arguments in itself does not mean with certainty that the thesis itself is false, since false conclusions can be drawn from a true thesis. The essence of this method is, therefore, not to prove the falsity of the thesis, but to reveal, to show its lack of evidence. Any unproven thesis is not taken for granted, it needs proof. Therefore, criticism of arguments can be a fairly effective way of refutation. This is rather a way to achieve the truth, rather than effectively conducting a dispute, as it helps, first of all, to ensure that the opponent can prove his true judgment. False in this case will be rejected. The absence of true arguments in the proof may come from the falsity of the thesis being proved, the opponent's low awareness of the subject, and the lack of information about this subject in general. When using this method of refutation, one should not forget that it is impossible to conclude with certainty (as already mentioned above) from the denial of the foundation to the denial of the consequence. Another type of rebuttal is failure of demonstration. As in the first case, in the process of such a refutation the thesis is not affected, i.e. its falsity is not proven. Only errors made by the opponent during the proof process are revealed. Thus, just as when criticizing arguments, the fact that the thesis is unproven is shown. Mainly the arguments presented as evidence are considered. In this case, the task of refuting or confirming the thesis is not assigned to the refuter. It only reveals the shortcomings of the opponent’s evidence, forcing the latter to change arguments and correct mistakes that arise, as a rule, as a result of violation of one or another rule of deductive reasoning. In the process of proof, a hasty generalization can be made if, in the conclusion, only that part of the facts was taken into account that speaks in favor of the conclusion made. In this case, it is also necessary to point out to the opponent the mistake made. Author: Shadrin D.A. << Back: Argumentation and proof (Proof. Argumentation) >> Forward: Sophistry. Logical paradoxes (Sophisms. Concept, examples. Paradox. Concept, examples)
▪ National history. Lecture notes ▪ History of political and legal doctrines. Crib
The existence of an entropy rule for quantum entanglement has been proven
09.05.2024 Mini air conditioner Sony Reon Pocket 5
09.05.2024 Energy from space for Starship
08.05.2024
▪ Chip SAA7133 - stereo video decoder ▪ New application for the hydrogen engine
▪ section of the site Audio Art. Article selection ▪ article And he did not want to bless anything in all nature. Popular expression ▪ article What do Dalmatian puppies look like at birth? Detailed answer ▪ Compass article. Tourist tips ▪ article From one coin - three. Focus secret
Home page | Library | Articles | Website map | Site Reviews
www.diagram.com.ua |
We recommend interesting articles Section 
See other articles Section 
Latest news of science and technology, new electronics:
All languages of this page