A philosopher’s 350-year-old trick to get people to change

[Wootah]

I felt we might all benefit from this article

https://qz.com/778767/to-tell-someone-t ... yre-right/

[Neatras]

OK, let's examine that. You may present a specific example if you like, but I think the concept speaks for itself. I would think, when presented with a straw man argument, one could acknowledge the connection one might make that would give rise to the straw man. Then, one could explain that such is not the case, or at least that one does not view that as the case. One could then provide details of the particular case that eliminate the straw man from the discussion. In this way, one has used the Pascal method; finding merit in what ones opponent said, reinforcing one's own position, and returning the discussion back to the desired track.

I've been told in the past that there is another component in accepting the faults in an argument: In situations where a pair of individuals is debating another pair, one will generally accept correction from their "partner" in a debate, while putting up a firmly erected wall against the opposition's counterarguments.

For example, if Person A makes claim 1, and supports it with evidence X, Y, and Z, their partner, Person B, might notice a mistake in their argumentation and point out how evidence Y doesn't actually support their argument. As if to "close ranks," Person A may accept correction with ease. But if the other side were to do so, there would be firm opposition.

Does this concept have a more concrete term I can use? And more relevantly, does this have an aspect of Pascal's technique involved? At first glance, it would seem to differ. But perhaps having a person "on your side" acknowledging the fact that an argument doesn't work in your favor is another flavor of personable behavior that leads to one changing their outlook.

If this is the case, could debates improve or suffer from utilizing a buddy system? If having a person "on your side" to fix broken arguments is useful, it would eliminate many strawmen from the debate altogether. But this is only under the assumption that a buddy would be able to catch fallacies, and not perpetrate them instead.

[bluethread]

If this is the case, could debates improve or suffer from utilizing a buddy system? If having a person "on your side" to fix broken arguments is useful, it would eliminate many strawmen from the debate altogether. But this is only under the assumption that a buddy would be able to catch fallacies, and not perpetrate them instead.

Well, I don't think that fits the methodology of the OP's tactic. That is more of a good cop/bad cop approach. That is not to say that one using the Pascal approach could not conspire with one who takes the adversarial approach, so he would appear to be an unbiased moderator. It is my understanding that the purpose of the Pascal method is to break down resistance, not force agreement.