7 Assumptions

In discussing rebuttal, we said that it can be good to anticipate objections to an argument and respond to them pre-emptively.

However, there is a problem with this advice.

If anyone can dispute any part of your argument, including disputing your pre-emptive responses, how do you ever finish your argument?

For example, in arguments about science, engineering, and technology, everyone assumes everyone else agrees that the Earth is round.

Nobody wants to begin an argument about satellites or cyclones having to prove that the Earth is round; it's a waste of everyone's time, as described in this article about arguing with flat-earthers:

Thinking that the Earth might be flat appears to have grown in popularity in recent years...

But the Earth isn’t flat.

Unsurprisingly, this isn’t hard to prove. But as scads of YouTube videos demonstrate, these proofs fail to convince flat-earthers. A glance at the comments shows there’s still vitriolic disagreement in some quarters.

Philosophy can explain why. Consider one, standard, flat-earth line: “Can you prove the world is round?” Maybe you point to the (often artificially assembled) photos of Earth from space. Or possibly you rely on the testimony of astronauts. The flat-earther knocks it all back. The standard of proof is higher, they say. *You* haven’t been to space. *You* haven’t seen the round earth.

Perhaps you then start to appeal to science. But unless you’re unusual, you probably don’t know all of the details of the scientific proofs. And even if you know the details, unless you’ve indulged existing flat-earth literature, you are unlikely — right here, right now — to be able to cogently, concisely, and comprehensively respond to the lengthy rebuttals flat-earthers will give to each and every scientific proof.

You could double down. Getting knee deep in the vloggersphere, you might learn the details of the scientific proofs as well as painstakingly spelling out each error in every flat-earther’s rebuttal.

I recommend against doing that.

"How to argue with flat-earthers"(2018)

At some point, we have to make assumptions.

In argumentation, assumptions are simply any relevant facts, values, or principles that the speaker assumes the audience already believes or agrees with.

Assumptions are "the stuff we can take for granted" in an argument.

Not only do you not need to convince the audience about these assumptions, you don't even need to talk about them.

(And to be clear: we make assumptions in order to avoid getting bogged down. However, that doesn't mean our assumptions are right!)

Because the point of assumptions is to not have to talk about them, it's normal to not find them explicitly articulated.

However, we can often infer underlying assumptions in an argument by asking questions such as:

What facts does this argument assume to be true?
What cause & effect does this argument assume to be true?
What values does this argument assume everyone holds for this argument to be true? (And how are those values defined?)

For example, what is the contested claim in this ad? And what does it assume everyone already agrees on?

What is the contested claim in this ad? And what does it assume everyone already agrees on?

The ad assumes that all drivers value human life and believe that hitting pedestrians is bad.

The argument is that if you are feeling sleepy while driving, you should not try to power through because sleep is always stronger than you which means you will fall asleep and potentially hit someone (which we all know is bad).

(It's an argument precisely because it's disputed; many sleepy drivers believe they can push through to their destination.)

When making an argument, we have to decide which lower-level claims and evidence can be assumed and left unsaid.

But when critiquing an argument, the best rebuttals can come from unearthing and challenging those assumptions.

For example, this poster implies that "being yourself" is good and you should do it.

If we were to ask what facts, cause & effect, or values have to be assumed for this claim to be true, what underlying assumptions can you find?

What assumptions underlie this claim? (E.g. assumed facts, cause & effect, or values?)

It's worth pointing out that, because this poster consists only of a claim and a graphic, almost everything else is a kind of assumption. In more explicit written arguments, there would be a clearer divide between reasoning & evidence and underlying assumptions.

However, with that in mind, if we were to ask what facts, cause & effect, or values have to be assumed for this claim to be true, we might come up with things like:

Authenticity is important
Individualism is valuable
We actually know who we are
There is a stable "self" for us to "be" in different contexts
People are not "themselves" often enough for this to be a problem worth addressing
Other people accept and reward individuality
You can't be yourself if you conform to others
Difference is good

Challenge one of these assumptions with a brief rebuttal (even if you don't believe it!).

Here are some possible challenges to some of these assumptions:

Authenticity is important

Who cares about authenticity? Who cares if someone is fake? What's important is the experience you have with a person. If that experience is better when they're fake, then they should be fake!

If it's important to you to feel like you are being "authentic", whatever that means, then that's fine but it's something you want for yourself; it's not necessarily good advice to other people.

Individualism is valuable

Individualism is not valuable in and of itself. It's only valuable if the individual is different in a way that is exceptionally valuable to others. The problem is that it's just as likely, if not more so, that an individual is different in a way that makes them less valuable to others, and if that's the case you shouldn't be yourself at all, you should try to be like everyone else.

We actually know who we are

"Be yourself"? Who am I? And what is "being me"? Does it mean if I want to sleep all day, and I do, I am being myself? Am I the person who sleeps all day? Or am I the person who does what I want for as long as I want to? And do I really want to sleep all day, or am I just depressed?

To recap

Because any part of an argument can be challenged, there's a risk that any argument could turn into a bottomless pit of increasingly low-level claims, evidence, reasoning, and pre-emptive responses to head off possible objections.
Doing this would make every argument impossible and exhausting, so for everyone's sanity we have to, at some point, draw a line in an argument and assume that everyone shares certain basic beliefs and values in the world. For example:
- We assume everyone believes peaceful solutions are better than violent solutions.
- We assume everyone believes the Earth is round.
- We assume everyone accepts that the geological data is accurate and has been interpreted correctly.
These aren't just random assumptions about anything. In an argument, the assumptions we care about are shared beliefs and values that are needed to make the argument true.
These assumptions exist whether or not they are stated, which means they can be exposed and challenged.
When making an argument, we decide which claims, evidence, and reasoning should buried in the assumptions.
When disputing an argument, we often want to dig up those assumptions and challenge them, because it's often where the weakest parts of the argument are hidden.
Weak arguments might include faulty assumptions.
Strong rebuttals can challenge bad assumptions.

Eight argument components