You-Read-It-Here-First

[jabailo]

I have trying to find a way to express impasses I've found often in Internet threads when it comes to argumentation. Here I am using an Internet thread to explore the problem (which in and of itself is a bit hopeless perhaps, but here goes).

So, I read that in an argument you have a premise and a conclusion.

Premise: It is raining
Argument: If it is raining, then I will get wet outside.
Conclusion: Outside I will get wet.

So, the issue I am trying to describe is when someone uses an almost universal premise, but couples it with a possibly specious, or at least debatable Argument.

Premise: The Sun Will Come Up Tomorrow
Argument: If the sun comes up, we must be experiencing manmade global warming
Conclusion: We must tax carbon

The person then focuses on the premise, not the argument and starts shouting things like "Oh, so you're one of those anti-Sun-coming-up-tomorrow" types...guess you think we're evolved from Unicorns then!!

The problem is, it often works as this slight-of-mind technique focuses the audience on the unassailable truth of the Premise, so trying to "argue" the argument can seem like nitpicking in the face of what would be obvious to all. The follow up of ad hominem attacks is then double effective as by making the person seem to doubt the premise his integrity at evaluating the argument is all but destroyed!

[brian-hansen]