Because it was off topic and you folks are so strict..
Scoates,
I was interested in the students conclusions about "agreement" whch often operates independently of "logic". Such is obviously the case in religion for example. So is the role of a teacher merely to point this out, or to try to promote "logic" as some sort of ultimate arbitrator in discussion? After all, logic can only operate successfully on consensual premises.
We are working on persuasive papers, and I do not believe consensus is a valid form of persuasion.
Currently, I've told them I don't care what their position is, as long as they can support it. That's been a big enough stretch for 11th graders, but they're getting the hang of the idea.
Point taken, however on reading Wittgenstein one might arrive at the conclusion that consensus is the
only form of persuasion other than coercion.
