Your Method 3 and 5 look very similar. To the extent they're not, Method 5 doesn't actually seem like "disagreeing with the argument" at all, just putting another position forward, not dissimilar to your Method 4. In Method 3 I think you're suggesting reduction ad absurdum, i.e. you draw another conclusion that your interlocutor won't like either, whereas in 4 and 5 you're just offering a different argument or asserting a position that conflicts with the conclusion of an argument.
Your Method 4 might be a red herring. It's unclear to me what a stronger argument would be if they're both from assumptions that haven't been refuted and no fault in the inferences has been detected. It can't "weaken" an argument that someone else can present a different argument for a different conclusion, as that is always true of all arguments.
Another "Method": refute that deductive arguments offer any "justification" for their arguments at all, a la petitio principii, and Critical Rationalism.
Why I don't think method 4 is necessarily a red herring- at least if that is meant in any derogatory sense: Suppose that someone gives an intricate argument that the world trade centre never collapsed, drawing on engineering, physics etc- and I have no way of responding to that but I respond "Okay, but I've been there and it's not standing". That's technically rejecting their argument by presenting another argument, but it doesn't seem wrong in any way.
I think you're right that method 5 is the special case of method 3, to speak a little loosely, where the reduction to absurdity is... the conclusion itself. I've added a note to that effect.
Maybe some of these could be considered subtypes of the others:
- arguing that the interpretation of a premise is ambiguous between one possibility which is true but doesn't lead to the conclusion vs. another that is false and leads to the conclusion.
- arguments related to the definitions of key terms in general.
- arguments to do with whether a premise is meaningful or knowable.
- meta arguments about what kind of person would make a sort of argument haha
You forgot parody arguments. They show that the form of argument fails even if you can’t identify the mistake
Method 7: Attack the author of the argument for being an irredeemable cur, worthy only of insult and ignominy.
Your Method 3 and 5 look very similar. To the extent they're not, Method 5 doesn't actually seem like "disagreeing with the argument" at all, just putting another position forward, not dissimilar to your Method 4. In Method 3 I think you're suggesting reduction ad absurdum, i.e. you draw another conclusion that your interlocutor won't like either, whereas in 4 and 5 you're just offering a different argument or asserting a position that conflicts with the conclusion of an argument.
Your Method 4 might be a red herring. It's unclear to me what a stronger argument would be if they're both from assumptions that haven't been refuted and no fault in the inferences has been detected. It can't "weaken" an argument that someone else can present a different argument for a different conclusion, as that is always true of all arguments.
Another "Method": refute that deductive arguments offer any "justification" for their arguments at all, a la petitio principii, and Critical Rationalism.
Why I don't think method 4 is necessarily a red herring- at least if that is meant in any derogatory sense: Suppose that someone gives an intricate argument that the world trade centre never collapsed, drawing on engineering, physics etc- and I have no way of responding to that but I respond "Okay, but I've been there and it's not standing". That's technically rejecting their argument by presenting another argument, but it doesn't seem wrong in any way.
I think you're right that method 5 is the special case of method 3, to speak a little loosely, where the reduction to absurdity is... the conclusion itself. I've added a note to that effect.
Maybe some of these could be considered subtypes of the others:
- arguing that the interpretation of a premise is ambiguous between one possibility which is true but doesn't lead to the conclusion vs. another that is false and leads to the conclusion.
- arguments related to the definitions of key terms in general.
- arguments to do with whether a premise is meaningful or knowable.
- meta arguments about what kind of person would make a sort of argument haha
I've added 1. in as its own category and attributed you, and made 3. a subcategory of challenging premises and challenging inferences.
Do you have something in mind with making this list? A particular argument you are making or disagree with?
No, just never say a taxonomy of these things before (or not one that I thought was adequate).