REFUTATION
All components of a written or spoken discourse in a given situation can be used and/or manipulated by the opponent to show that the discourse needs to be corrected or is totally intolerable.
Two main types of strategy can be distinguished refutation and destruction, or combinations thereof. Discourse destruction is an all-out global attack aimed at invalidating both the discourse and the speaker. Discourse refutation is a reactive speech act involving an explicit and, at least partially, to the matter argued rejection of a claim, usually extended to the position which it supports. Such refutations are usually accompanied by negative evaluations and signs of tension, which may be expressed paralinguistically:
A congress of mathematicians. During the discussion session of a paper, a participant is given the floor He goes to the blackboard, without speaking, and writes a few lines of mathematics, without saying a word. Violently, he adds a final comma to his writing, throws the chalk into its box and returns to his seat, still without saying a word.
From a scientific point of view, a proposition is refuted when it is shown to be false; the calculation from which it is derived contains an error; it affirms something that contradicts the observed facts.
From the point of view of ordinary interaction, a line of argument line is contextually refuted when, after being discussed, it is abandoned, either explicitly or implicitly. Accordingly, the question itself disappears, and the interaction moves on to another structuring topic.
As a reactive speech act, refutation can only be handled in a verbal (face-to-face) or written (text-to-text) dialogue. Monological discourse knows only the concession, there are no refutative subordinate clauses, and concessive clauses reduce the refutation to an objection.
1. Refutation Targets at a Key Structural Component of the Argument
Any component of the propositional argument model can be targeted by the act of refutation, see argumentation-3 – layout of argument
1.1 Rejecting the Argument
An argument supporting a conclusion can be rejected in several ways.
(i) The argument is declared to be false:
S1 — Peter will certainly arrive on Tuesday; he has been invited to Paul’s birthday party.
S2 — But Paul’s birthday is on Monday.
(ii) The argument is rejected as irrelevant to the conclusion:
S1 — He is very intelligent, he read all of Proust’s works in three days.
S2 — Intelligence has nothing to do with reading speed.
(iii) The argument may be accepted as such, recognized as somehow relevant to the conclusion but may be dismissed as too weak, or of poor quality:
S1 — The President has spoken, the stock market will go up.
S2 — Yes, and what he says goes! (said sarcastically).
Rejecting the argument may lead to a new argumentative question (sub-debate), about the truth, strength or relevance of the disputed argument.
Reject the argument and maintain the conclusion.
S1 — Peter will certainly arrive on Tuesday, he wants to be there for Paul’s birthday.
S2 — Paul’s birthday is on Monday, but Peter will not arrive until Tuesday, I bought his tickets.
Nevertheless, in ideological debates, only the most ascetic arguers will refute questionable or bad arguments in favor of conclusions that they consider good or virtuous.
1.2 Rejecting the support
The support invoked, implicitly or not, is declared false:
S1 — Pedro was born in the Malvinas Islands, so he is an Argentine citizen.
S2 — The Falkland Islands are British territory.
The adverbs exactly, precisely (not) can substitute one support for another (Ducrot & al., 1982), see orientation:
S1 — Noodles for dinner!
S2 — Again! We had noodles for lunch!
S1 — (Exactly!), we have to eat the leftovers, we don’t waste food.
The resulting stasis is caused by the conflict of two topoi:
Diet or taste: « you have to vary your diet« .
Economic principle « food should not be thrown away« .
2. The argument is not relevant
See relevant
— Not relevant to the conclusion:
S1 — Cannabis should be legalized; the taxes will pay off the National Health Service deficit
S2 —It will certainly increase tax revenues, but it will further increase the number of drug addicts. Prohibition must be maintained.
— Not relevant to the issue:
Discussion: Town council; about the new school
S1 — Did you know that the law requires us to offer a weekly vegetarian menu from the start of the school year?
S2 — I think this is an excellent idea!
Chair — Please, catering is not on the agenda, we have to decide about the matter of the documentation center.
3. Refutation using the resources of counter-discourse
In the previous section, the concept of refutation was approached in the general terms used to describe the « argument pattern » in general. Now, each argument pattern can also be rebutted on the basis of its specific defining structure and components. The possible rebuttal strategies correspond to the fuzzy set of critical questions attached to the specific argument pattern under consideration.
Testimony: Was the witness able to see and hear what he reported?
Authority: Was the quotation accurately reported?
Definition (lexical): Does the definition include the main uses of the word?
Structural analogy: Were the relevant elements and relationships in the resource and target domains clearly defined and connected?
Induction: Were the cases cited to support the generalization correctly tested for the characteristic in question?
Causal claim: Is the claimed effect properly constituted?
A negative answer to any of these critical questions contributes to the refutation of the argument under consideration.
In the skeptical philosophical style, these lines of criticism, can be cumulated to reject the argumentative type itself as inherently weak in a « discourse against authority, etc. which rejects all forms of argument from authority, and so on.
These discourse cumulate in a general discourse « against argumentation”.
These questions on refutation go to the heart of evaluating arguments (enthymemes), that is, weighing their weaknesses against their strengths, and this requires some expertise in the ecology of arguments, that is, the specific domain and circumstances in which they operate.
This is the overarching condition for a correct evaluation of an argument, and that is why, in the case of any somewhat complex argument, the evaluator must at least be familiar with in the field in which he or she claims to intervene, see
A question remains: is it possible to correctly delimit and characterize the discursive concrete elements of the text that correspond to the abstract entities that are supposed to characterize the basic structure of the argument, for example, what are the data considered, the correct levels of support and warrant, the condition of refutation and the precise meaning of the conclusion, in the scientific field in which it lives? Or should we prudently limit ourselves with what we call everyday discourse?
4. Paradoxical effects of refutation
See Paradoxes of Argumentation and Refutation, §2:
– The absence of rebuttal confirms the position that it attacks, even if this position is false, inconsequential, or absurd.
– A weak rebuttal strengthens the position it attacks.
– An weak rebuttal by a recognized good debater strongly confirms the attacked position.
=> Hence the possibility of knowingly proposing a weak rebuttal to support a position when it cannot be openly supported.