arguments

Arguments are building blocks of creating a cojesive mental model, that convinces someone to believe something.

A traditional scientific paper is about presenting information, observations, opinion, sources, experimental data, instructions for experimentation, etc.. They also imply a demand to heard and believed. they provoke a counter example, a refutation, if one can be made.

Presenting such an argument should always make a point in a leading, abstract paragraph.

1. i have observed something, extracted a pattern that I think to be universally true.
2. the observation, method for extraction and the concise formulation of the pattern
3. reminder of the initial claim, additional thoughts or pointers

building blocks

discussion is about communication. and remember communication is hard. there are arguments you can use to convince other people. and there are arguments you cant use. this is not about whether arguments are "technically feasible" its about whether they are likely to convince other people or whether they are reasonable to expect of other people. arguments you can use:

• what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
• appeal to basic human empathy
• appeal to moral values
• appeal to religious values ( sometimes)
• a complete experiment setup.
• a complete chain of logic or math
• reading a text max. 15min (arbitrary limit set by me)

• "repeat this experiment" depends on the effort and skill level and the money required. same for "go see for yourself"
• "listen to science" requires a base level of trust towards science and scientist, which, by the way, i no longer have after getting a degree. individual stuff, sure. i will reqd papers and do something with them. but im never again going to trust someone because they "publushed" or have some rank or degree.
• superiority of a position because of the personal attributrs like wealth, fame, skin color, gender, profession, etc of those who represent the position.