Types of Argument in Dialogue

There are four kinds of argument used in discussion: didactic, dialectical, peirastic and eristic. Explain each of them.

Sure, I'd be happy to explain these four types of argument. Each is distinct in its approach and purpose.

1. Didactic Argument: This is a type of argument that is educational or instructive in nature. The primary aim of a didactic argument is to teach or convey information. This might involve a clear explanation of a topic, a demonstration of how something works, or a step-by-step walkthrough of a process. It's often used in formal education settings and is also common in informative writing and speaking.

2. Dialectical Argument: Dialectic argumentation is a dialogue between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth through reasoned discussion. It is aimed at exploring the dimensions of a complex issue and arriving at the most complete understanding possible. This type of argument is often used in philosophical discussions and in settings where critical thinking and exploration of diverse viewpoints is encouraged.

3. Peirastic Argument: The term "peirastic" is derived from the Greek word "peirao," which means "to test" or "to experiment". In this type of argument, the aim is to test the validity of a certain position or hypothesis, often by examining its implications and looking for inconsistencies or contradictions. It's a method of inquiry that involves probing, questioning, and critical examination, with the goal of refining and improving an understanding of the topic.

4. Eristic Argument: This comes from the Greek word "eris" meaning strife. Eristic arguments are those that focus on winning a debate or conflict, rather than seeking truth or consensus. They often involve personal attacks, fallacies, and other tactics that are aimed at defeating the opponent rather than fostering understanding or collaboration. This type of argument is often seen in heated debates and contentious discussions where the goal is victory rather than mutual understanding.

Each of these types of argument has its place in discourse, depending on the goals and context of the discussion. However, they each have their strengths and weaknesses, and understanding the differences can be helpful in navigating and participating in various kinds of debates and discussions.

Note: the division is from Aristotle, Sophistical Refutations, part 2.