Shouldn’t the goal be to illuminate facts and truths rather than merely proving the other side wrong? Specifics certainly allow the illumination of truths (and so getting less wrong in our decisions and actions).
Yep! Since in practice, the other side of a discussion is often incoherent about the meaning of their original claim, I believe it’s efficient to employ this specificity tool to illuminate the incoherence early in the conversation.
However, it almost reads like the goal is to use specificity as some rhetorical tool in much the same way statistics can be misused to color the lens and mislead.
I’m sure that is not your goal so assume one of the hidden assumptions here could be put in the title. One additional word: The Power to Demolish BAD Arguments might set a better tone at the start.
Yep! Since in practice, the other side of a discussion is often incoherent about the meaning of their original claim, I believe it’s efficient to employ this specificity tool to illuminate the incoherence early in the conversation.
Ah yeah, I agree. Title changed. Thanks!