I have conflicting impulses to argue with people's premises vs arguing with the conclusions. If their conclusions seem really wrong, I immediately have an impulse to explain why I think that's wrong (which is sometimes useful, even if often asking for more detail on why they think that is usually more constructive).
Conversely, if I'm less emotionally involved, my instinct is to work forward step-by-step from premises we agree with, completely discounting any conclusions until I can understand every step towards them.
What I'm now realising is that both of those are useful at different times (different to what my instincts tell me). It's futile arguing with conclusions which rest on significantly different premises.
But OTOH, often people hone and refine their argument when their conclusion seems insufficient, in that we may arrive at the same conclusion from different routes, having refined our premises such that they seem different, but might actually fulfil similar purposes from different perspectives.
So it's worth judiciously switching back and forth to check which seems most constructive for a particular subject.
Conversely, if I'm less emotionally involved, my instinct is to work forward step-by-step from premises we agree with, completely discounting any conclusions until I can understand every step towards them.
What I'm now realising is that both of those are useful at different times (different to what my instincts tell me). It's futile arguing with conclusions which rest on significantly different premises.
But OTOH, often people hone and refine their argument when their conclusion seems insufficient, in that we may arrive at the same conclusion from different routes, having refined our premises such that they seem different, but might actually fulfil similar purposes from different perspectives.
So it's worth judiciously switching back and forth to check which seems most constructive for a particular subject.